High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41707 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12621 of 2024 Appellant :- Umesh Kumar Gond Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga,Vikrant Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- Md Zakir Husain, Md. Nuruddin Khan, Syed Shahnawaz Shah,G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no. learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Umesh Kumar Gond with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, in Bail Application No. 2549
Legal Reasoning
of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 370 of 2017 under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)v, 3(2)va SC/ST Act, Police Station - Pakari, District- Ballia. 3. The prosecution has come forward with the allegation that the
Legal Reasoning
informant Smt. Shail Devi is a member of SC/ST community. On 29.5.2017 at about 11.00 PM she got telephonic information by Gram Pradhan, Sunil Rai that her son Ajit Gond had sustained fire arm injury at the house of Nirmala Rai. The informant along with her husband, son Sunil and Ranjit and other villagers reached police station Pakadi in the same night and found that dead bodies of her son Ajit and Khushboo were lying on the road in front of the police station. The dead bodies contained several fire arm and stabbed injuries. She was informed there that after 2 committing the murder of Khushboo Rai, Ajit committed suicide by firing himself. Further it was mentioned in the FIR that Prince Rai, the son of Nirmala, earlier was working with the deceased, son of the informant, and her son often used to go to house of Prince Rai but subsequently their relations were strained and about 1 month prior to the incident Prince Rai along with his some associates had come to the house of the informant hurling caste related abuses and asked for her son. Now the said Prince in conspiracy with her mother and sister Pinki Rai has committed a planned murder of her son Ajit and also the girl Khushboo and a false story was narrated that murder of Khushboo was committed by her son Ajit, who subsequently committed suicide. It was also disclosed in the FIR that on 29.5.2017 at about 2.30 in the afternoon Mukesh Sharma had seen deceased Ajit in the company of Prakash @ Bhodu, Umesh Kumar Gond and Umesh Sharma near Suresh Hotel, P.S. Kotwali, Ballia. Apart from this Sugriv Ram one associate of Prince Rai had threatened the elder son of the informant Sunil that in case Ajit comes to Ballia he would be killed. The deceased was staying at Delhi for a period of 1 year from where he was called by the aforesaid persons and in criminal conspiracy of all he was murdered. Two mobile phones were also recovered by the police from the place of occurrence and when the police took no action in this matter an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the informant. By order of the Court FIR in this matter was lodged but however, after investigation final report was submitted by the I.O. and then protest petition was moved by the informant and the Court taking cognizance of the matter summoned accused persons Prince Rai, Nirmala Rai, Pinki Rai, Sugriv, Prakash, Umesh Kumar Gond, and Umesh Sharma under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)v, 3(2)va SC/ST Act vide order dated 26.7.2023. 4. 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 3 against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the present accused appellant has no criminal history and he is a labourer. He was having good relations with the deceased. No one has seen the accused appellant committing murder of the deceased Ajit. It is further submitted that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. A false statement has been given by the witness Mukesh Sharma that he had seen the deceased in the company of Umesh Sharma and Prakash @ Bhodu on motor cycle on 29.5.2017 at about 2.00 pm, however, it is pertinent to mention that the name of present accused appellant Umesh Kumar Gond has not been taken by witness Mukesh Sharma in the aforesaid statement given to the I.O. It is also submitted that another witness Sunil Kumar Gond affirmed the statement given by the said witness Mukesh Sharma of what he had seen and narrated earlier but he deliberately added the name of Umesh Kumar Gond, the present accused appellant about whom nothing has been stated by Mukesh Sharma, hence the evidence of Sunil Kumar Gond falls into the category of hearsay evidence having no evidentiary value. It is further submitted that FIR of this case has been lodged about one and half month after the occurrence without any plausible explanation of delay. It is further submitted that the I.O. has recorded the evidence of Smt. Bindu Rai, who happens to be the aunt of the deceased Khushboo Rai and resides in a separate part of the same house and she has stated that she had seen Ajit Kumar Gond, who entered into the portion of the deceased Khushboo Rai in the night and committed murder of Khushboo Rai with a knife and also committed suicide by stabbing and firing. She has clarified that she has not seen the accused appellant making fire or stabbing upon Khushboo Rai. It is also submitted that the deceased Khusbhoo Rai is her cousin and she had seen Ajit Kumar Gond at about 3.00 am over the roof of Khushboo Rai, who was carrying a country made pistol. Ajit Kumar Gond committed murder of Khusboo Rai and also committed suicide by fire and at that time he was all alone and no one was 4 accompanying him. The trial Court 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. Appellant is in jail since 4.11.2024. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 13.11.2024. It is further submitted that it is a case of honour killing since Khushboo Rai, the daughter of Nirmala was having some affair with the deceased Ajit Kumar Gond and all the accused persons Nirmala Rai, the mother, Prince Rai, brother and Pinki Rai, sister of the deceased Khushboo Rai in criminal conspiracy with each other called the deceased Ajit in their house and then with the aid of other co-accused persons committed murder of Ajit and Khushboo with the aid of knife and fire arm. It is further submitted that there is ample evidence to the fact that Mukesh Sharma had seen the deceased Ajit along with Prakash, Umesh Kumar Gond, Umesh Sharma on 29.5.2017 at 2.30 pm and the I.O. has collected such evidence during investigation. It is further submitted that the doctor has found fire arm injury and stabbed wounds as well on the body of deceased Ajit and it was never plausible and natural that after making a fire arm injury upon him deceased Ajit was in a position of stabbing himself or if he had earlier stabbed himself it was not natural that subsequently he also made a fire upon himself to commit suicide. It is further submitted that last seen evidence is available before the present accused appellant and in the entire facts and circumstances of this case he was also a part of criminal conspiracy to cause murder of Ajit and Khushboo Rai. It is further submitted that a number of injuries have been found upon the body of Khushboo Rai and Ajit Kumar as well. The cause 5 of death of Ajit Kumar has been found in the post mortem report as hemorrhage shock due to ante-mortem fire arm injuries and for other deceased Khushboo Rai the cause of death has been opined as hemorrhagic shock as a result of anti mortem injuries. 6. 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. 7. In the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the last seen evidence against the present accused appellant Umesh Kumar Gond is not a strong evidence behind it because the witness Mukesh Sharma who is actually nominated as a witness of last seen no where states the name of present appellant Umesh Kumar Gond with the deceased and other co-accused persons on 29.5.2017 at about 2.00 pm but this statement was wrongly quoted by witness Sunil Kumar Gond when he added the name of present accused appellant Umesh Kumar Gond along with other co-accused persons at the time of last seen together whereas his evidence is based upon the statement of Mukesh Sharma, who did not name the appellant Umesh Kumar Gond. 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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 10. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties 6 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 :- 19.3.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad