The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by an appellant against the rejection of his bail application. The Special Judge had denied bail in a murder case involving a Scheduled Caste deceased, finding the appellant was last seen with the victim.
Criminal appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125647 Reserved on 24.05.2023 Delivered on 08.06.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2579 of 2023
Appellant :- Awadhesh Karan @ Lala Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijay Singh Rathore
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Salman Ahmad and Sri Sushil Kumar Rathore, learned counsels for the appellant; Sri Vijay Singh Rathore, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2022, whereby the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Jalaun has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Session Trial No.161 of 2021, Case Crime No. 192 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Modhogarh, District Jalaun.
There is allegation against unknown accused in the first information report lodged by the informant belonging to schedule caste. It is alleged that brother of the informant, Vijai, aged about 19 years left his house on 30.10.2021 in the afternoon and did not returned. Today on 31.10.2021 at about 10.00 p.m. the informant came to know that a dead body is lying in the agricultural field of Gaurav Gujjar, in the drain. Dead body was found of brother of the informant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion only. He was employed as Tractor driver in the shop of Ranveer Singh and his salary of six months was due and hence he has been implicated by Ranveer in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. At the time of incident the appellant was in Hyderabad and deceased went missing on 30.10.2021 but the first information
report was lodged 01.11.021 belatedly without any explanation of delay. The deceased was a drunkard and fell down in the drain and died. There is no incriminating recovery from the appellant and he has also no criminal history to his credit.
Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that there is evidence of last seen collected by the Investigating Officer against the appellant, which has been corroborated by number of eye witnesses account. The cause of death of deceased was found to be ante mortem injury suffered by him. There were 11 ante mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased.
Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail.
After hearing rival contentions, this court finds that the informant has stated in his statement that his deceased brother, Vijay, has close friend-ship with the appellant and they used to remain together and also consume liquor etc. He expressed apprehension that the appellant must be aware of the correct facts regarding incident in dispute. The independent witness, Mukesh Kumar Soni, stated before the Investigating Officer that he is salesman in the liquor shop where on 30.10.2021 the appellant came with the deceased at 8.00 p.m. and purchased liquor and went away. Similarly the other witnesses namely, Ram Babu, Prabhu Dayal, Ranveer Singh, Akash also stated that they saw the deceased with the appellant on 30.10.2021 together. Thereafter his body was recovered. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant was in company of the deceased and he was last seen by number of persons together.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case for granting bail to the appellant.
Criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The trial court will make all possible endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 08.06.2023
SS
2 of 2
Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant accused of murder under the SC/ST Act in light of last-seen evidence and apprehension.
Whether the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail application is sustainable.
Whether the trial court should expedite conclusion of the trial.
Awadhesh Karan @ Lala
State of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
