High Court · 2025

Appellant :- Vijay Gaud Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Vijay Gaud with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti in Case Crime No. 165 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record.

4. An F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C by the informant Indrawati who alleged in the F.I.R. that she herself belongs to SC/ST community. On 24.06.2024 her husband Vijay Bahadur went to do the job at the shop of cement morang of Riyaz and came afternoon to take his lunch and he again went to the shop at about 3.00 P.M. At about 7.00 P.M. when she contacted on his mobile phone, he informed that he would be come late. Subsequently, after thirty minutes his mobile phone was switched off. On the next day search was made by the informant and she was informed that her husband met with an accident then she reached at Dumari bridge who found his dead body. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted. In the post mortem report, death was found due to ante-mortem injuries which were 11 in number. The role of last seen was attributed to the present appellant by the witness Suhail and he made statement before the Investigating Officer that on 24.06.2024 at about 10.00 P.M. he had seen the deceased on motorcycle of present accused appellant and next day i.e. 25.06.2024 he came to know about the death of the deceased Vijay Bahadur.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution has developed a story that the deceased was having illicit relation with the wife of co-accused Ram Sajivan and the murder of the deceased would have been caused by Ram Sajivan who had strong motive to commit the crime but the present appellant has no concern with the wife of Ram Sajivan. It is next submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered on the pointing out of the appellant, rather the recovery has been made on the pointing out of co-accused Ram Sajivan. It is next submitted that the present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of friend of co-accused Ram Sajivan. It is further submitted that except last seen evidence, no other evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer against the appellant during investigation, even the murder weapon was recovered from the house of main accused Ram Sajivan on his pointing out. It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 02.07.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is lastly submitted that main accused Ram Sajivan, who had strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased, has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 44536 of 2024, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail by allowing the present criminal appeal.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and it is submitted that it is a case of murder of a young person and last seen evidence is available against the present appellant but however, could not dispute the fact that except last seen, no other evidence is available against the appellant.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role of the appellant and also keeping in view the fact that main accused Ram Sajivan has been granted bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court incarceration period of more than one year, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

10. Let the appellant Vijay Gaud involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i). The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v). The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

12. The learned trial court is directed to make all endeavour for expeditious disposal of the trial without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Vijay Gaud Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Vijay Gaud with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti in Case Crime No. 165 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record.

4. An F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C by the informant Indrawati who alleged in the F.I.R. that she herself belongs to SC/ST community. On 24.06.2024 her husband Vijay Bahadur went to do the job at the shop of cement morang of Riyaz and came afternoon to take his lunch and he again went to the shop at about 3.00 P.M. At about 7.00 P.M. when she contacted on his mobile phone, he informed that he would be come late. Subsequently, after thirty minutes his mobile phone was switched off. On the next day search was made by the informant and she was informed that her husband met with an accident then she reached at Dumari bridge who found his dead body. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted. In the post mortem report, death was found due to ante-mortem injuries which were 11 in number. The role of last seen was attributed to the present appellant by the witness Suhail and he made statement before the Investigating Officer that on 24.06.2024 at about 10.00 P.M. he had seen the deceased on motorcycle of present accused appellant and next day i.e. 25.06.2024 he came to know about the death of the deceased Vijay Bahadur.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution has developed a story that the deceased was having illicit relation with the wife of co-accused Ram Sajivan and the murder of the deceased would have been caused by Ram Sajivan who had strong motive to commit the crime but the present appellant has no concern with the wife of Ram Sajivan. It is next submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered on the pointing out of the appellant, rather the recovery has been made on the pointing out of co-accused Ram Sajivan. It is next submitted that the present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of friend of co-accused Ram Sajivan. It is further submitted that except last seen evidence, no other evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer against the appellant during investigation, even the murder weapon was recovered from the house of main accused Ram Sajivan on his pointing out. It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 02.07.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is lastly submitted that main accused Ram Sajivan, who had strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased, has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 44536 of 2024, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail by allowing the present criminal appeal.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and it is submitted that it is a case of murder of a young person and last seen evidence is available against the present appellant but however, could not dispute the fact that except last seen, no other evidence is available against the appellant.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role of the appellant and also keeping in view the fact that main accused Ram Sajivan has been granted bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court incarceration period of more than one year, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

10. Let the appellant Vijay Gaud involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i). The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v). The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

12. The learned trial court is directed to make all endeavour for expeditious disposal of the trial without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad