High Court · 2025

Appellant :- Ashish Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar,G.A.,Neeraj Srivastava Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the appellant is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ashish Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 2.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 171 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 103(1), 352, 351(2), 126(2), 3(5) of BNS and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Newadhiya, District Jaunpur.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/ informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

4. The named accused persons having some grudge with Suraj Kumar Gautam, son of the informant, who belongs to SC/ST community, with common intention prevented him on 31.10.2024 at 9.30 p.m. while he was coming back to his house and hurled abuses with caste related remarks and when it was protested by him, on exhortation of Pradhumn and Ashish, co-accused Ajay son of Chandra Prakash Yadav caught hold of Suraj and co-accused Ajay son of Subhash Yadav made assault upon his head with lathi, who became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital and subsequently Trauma Centre, BHU, Varanasi. F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 126(2), 110 of BNS and 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act, however, during investigation the injured could not survive and deleting Section 110 of BNS and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Sections 103(1) of BNS and 3(2) (V) of SC/ST were added to the matter.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. Appellant is an employee in Trimurti Hospital, Varanasi and he was on duty as usual on the day of the alleged incident. He is assigned only role of exhortation in this matter. As a matter of fact the deceased sustained injuries after falling down from the motorcycle and the entire prosecution story is false and concocted. No statement of the deceased, when he was alive, was recorded by the I.O. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is in jail since 10.11.2024. The Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 / informant opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The offence has been committed in furtherance of common intention of all the accused persons. The informant / mother of the deceased in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has supported the prosecution version. Another witness Aman Gautam has given eye witness account when he was interrogated by the I.O. He stated that when he alongwith Manish was coming from the shop of Brijesh @ Kallu, the named accused persons made an altercation with them and when his cousin Suraj Gautam came over there and tried to mitigate, all the accused persons hurled abuses by caste related remarks and accused Pradhumn, Ashish, Ajay son of Chandra Prakash Yadav caught hold of Suraj and Ajay son of Subhash Yadav made a blow with lathi upon his head with intention to kill him, who became unconscious. The other eye witness Manish Gautam has also uttered the same version and corroborates the prosecution case. Another eye witness Vikas Gautam has also narrated the same version and the roles of different accused persons have been specifically mentioned by him. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report the doctor has found as many as six serious injuries upon the body of the deceased, who had received serious head injury and his death was caused as a result of septicemia consequent to infected lung foci. The doctor further opined that about two weeks ago ante mortem injuries were sustained by the deceased and the post mortem was performed on 22.11.2024 whereas he was admitted in the hospital on 1.11.2024.

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, the fact that the appellant is not the principal offender and only role of exhortation has been assigned to him by the eye witnesses of this case, the 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 are 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 aforesaid appellant involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Ashish Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar,G.A.,Neeraj Srivastava Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the appellant is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ashish Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 2.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 171 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 103(1), 352, 351(2), 126(2), 3(5) of BNS and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Newadhiya, District Jaunpur.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/ informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

4. The named accused persons having some grudge with Suraj Kumar Gautam, son of the informant, who belongs to SC/ST community, with common intention prevented him on 31.10.2024 at 9.30 p.m. while he was coming back to his house and hurled abuses with caste related remarks and when it was protested by him, on exhortation of Pradhumn and Ashish, co-accused Ajay son of Chandra Prakash Yadav caught hold of Suraj and co-accused Ajay son of Subhash Yadav made assault upon his head with lathi, who became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital and subsequently Trauma Centre, BHU, Varanasi. F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 126(2), 110 of BNS and 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act, however, during investigation the injured could not survive and deleting Section 110 of BNS and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Sections 103(1) of BNS and 3(2) (V) of SC/ST were added to the matter.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. Appellant is an employee in Trimurti Hospital, Varanasi and he was on duty as usual on the day of the alleged incident. He is assigned only role of exhortation in this matter. As a matter of fact the deceased sustained injuries after falling down from the motorcycle and the entire prosecution story is false and concocted. No statement of the deceased, when he was alive, was recorded by the I.O. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is in jail since 10.11.2024. The Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 / informant opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The offence has been committed in furtherance of common intention of all the accused persons. The informant / mother of the deceased in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has supported the prosecution version. Another witness Aman Gautam has given eye witness account when he was interrogated by the I.O. He stated that when he alongwith Manish was coming from the shop of Brijesh @ Kallu, the named accused persons made an altercation with them and when his cousin Suraj Gautam came over there and tried to mitigate, all the accused persons hurled abuses by caste related remarks and accused Pradhumn, Ashish, Ajay son of Chandra Prakash Yadav caught hold of Suraj and Ajay son of Subhash Yadav made a blow with lathi upon his head with intention to kill him, who became unconscious. The other eye witness Manish Gautam has also uttered the same version and corroborates the prosecution case. Another eye witness Vikas Gautam has also narrated the same version and the roles of different accused persons have been specifically mentioned by him. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report the doctor has found as many as six serious injuries upon the body of the deceased, who had received serious head injury and his death was caused as a result of septicemia consequent to infected lung foci. The doctor further opined that about two weeks ago ante mortem injuries were sustained by the deceased and the post mortem was performed on 22.11.2024 whereas he was admitted in the hospital on 1.11.2024.

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, the fact that the appellant is not the principal offender and only role of exhortation has been assigned to him by the eye witnesses of this case, the 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 are 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 aforesaid appellant involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad