High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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 - Gopal Ji with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in Bail Application No.131 of 2024.

3. On 14.7.2021 at about 4.00 pm named accused persons Sham Ji and Gopal made an assault upon Mayank, nephew of the informant and also delivered some caste related remarks as he belongs to SC/ST community and resultantly he expired on 5.8.2021. FIR was lodged in the police station and a criminal complaint was preferred before the competent Court and an order for summoning of the accused persons was also passed but the said complaint being not maintainable was dismissed by this Court and a direction was issued to lodge FIR in this case. Accordingly, FIR of this was lodged on 24.9.2022. After investigation final report was submitted by the I.O. of this case, however, protest petition was filed by the complainant and the learned trial Court proceeded to record the statement of complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. After completion of the said evidence summoning order dated 29.4.2024 was passed by the Court and accused persons Shaym Ji and Gopal was summoned to face the trial under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act was passed by the Court.

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 against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the prosecution in this case has come forward with false and fabricated story. It is also submitted that after lodging of the FIR thorough investigation was made by the police but no offence was found to be made out against the appellant and that is why a final report was submitted in this matter. It is also submitted that after submission of the protest petition witnesses were recorded by the learned trial Court, incidentally, they were the same witnesses who were introgated by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that as per prosecution case the occurrence happened in a spur of moment without any premeditation. It is also submitted that the deceased remained alive for about 20 days after the incident. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. The FIR of this case was lodged very belatedly without any plausible explanation of delay. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. 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 23.10.2024. 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 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 18.11.2024 but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no weapon was recovered from possession or on the pointing out of the appellant and the FIR of this case was lodged belatedly.

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. 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.

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

9. Let the appellant - Gopal Ji involved in Case Crime No. 95 of 2022 under Sections 304 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Ait, District- Jalaun be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 10. 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 :- 20.2.2025 Fhd FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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 - Gopal Ji with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in Bail Application No.131 of 2024.

3. On 14.7.2021 at about 4.00 pm named accused persons Sham Ji and Gopal made an assault upon Mayank, nephew of the informant and also delivered some caste related remarks as he belongs to SC/ST community and resultantly he expired on 5.8.2021. FIR was lodged in the police station and a criminal complaint was preferred before the competent Court and an order for summoning of the accused persons was also passed but the said complaint being not maintainable was dismissed by this Court and a direction was issued to lodge FIR in this case. Accordingly, FIR of this was lodged on 24.9.2022. After investigation final report was submitted by the I.O. of this case, however, protest petition was filed by the complainant and the learned trial Court proceeded to record the statement of complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. After completion of the said evidence summoning order dated 29.4.2024 was passed by the Court and accused persons Shaym Ji and Gopal was summoned to face the trial under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act was passed by the Court.

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 against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the prosecution in this case has come forward with false and fabricated story. It is also submitted that after lodging of the FIR thorough investigation was made by the police but no offence was found to be made out against the appellant and that is why a final report was submitted in this matter. It is also submitted that after submission of the protest petition witnesses were recorded by the learned trial Court, incidentally, they were the same witnesses who were introgated by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that as per prosecution case the occurrence happened in a spur of moment without any premeditation. It is also submitted that the deceased remained alive for about 20 days after the incident. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. The FIR of this case was lodged very belatedly without any plausible explanation of delay. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. 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 23.10.2024. 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 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 18.11.2024 but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no weapon was recovered from possession or on the pointing out of the appellant and the FIR of this case was lodged belatedly.

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. 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.

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

9. Let the appellant - Gopal Ji involved in Case Crime No. 95 of 2022 under Sections 304 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Ait, District- Jalaun be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 10. 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 :- 20.2.2025 Fhd FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad