The appellant challenged the rejection of his bail application in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 302, 148, 149 and the SC/ST Act. The High Court, after reviewing the rival submissions and the record, held that the lower court had properly considered the case and the appellant did not make out a case for bail, thus dismissing the appeal.
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. - 2024:AHC:191011
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3720 of 2024
Appellant :- Mohit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kushagra Srivastava,Shahrukh
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
statement of co-accused Vijay Pal, his name came to surface, but even in that statement, no specific role has been assigned to the present appellant. It is also submitted that as per F.I.R. of this case, the informant and his brother are said to be the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, but in the statement of alleged eyewitness Kanishk and in the additional statement of informant Vansh Priya given to the I.O., it has been clearly stated by them that they never saw the occurrence and they were not present on the spot when the incident took place. It is further submitted that co-accused Sundar and Harsh, whose names find place in the FIR were exonerated by the I.O. during investigation. It is further submitted that the FIR of this case is anti-timed and the statements of witnesses were recorded after much delay by the I.O. of the case. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not explained the situation that to how the police officer reached at the crime scene first and the dead body was brought to the police station by them but no FIR was lodged at that time. It is also submitted that even in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant which was firstly recorded by the I.O., he has not named the present appellant. It is also submitted that it is also alleged that a videography was also prepared of the said occurrence, but the present appellant has not been shown in the aforesaid alleged video. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 28.10.2023. It is also submitted that after some investigation, three alleged eyewitnesses were falsely procured by the I.O. and the present appellant, on the basis of their false statements, which was recorded very belatedly, was falsely implicated in this matter. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut. It is further submitted that the Court below 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.
himself has proceeded for the spot and on this information was sent by the S.H.O. Inchauli. The police force reached the spot for the proceedings of inquest and the family members of the deceased were also present there and the inquest report further reveals that the information was already given to the police which was written down in the G.D. of the police station. It is also submitted that it is a case of contractual murder since the present accused appellant was not known to the informant and his brother. It is also submitted that though the present appellant was not named in the F.I.R., but alongwith three other co-accused persons, two unknown persons have been named and one of them is the present appellant. It is also submitted that there are three eyewitnesses of the occurrence, who have given positive ocular version of the occurrence before the I.O. and specific role of the present appellant has been assigned by them of catching hold the hands of the deceased. It is also submitted that firstly, the deceased was shot by desi pistol and thereafter he was strangulated by the accused persons and in the postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased has been found as strangulation. It is also submitted that after lodging of the F.I.R., within one week the statement of all the three eyewitnesses namely, Ravi, Babu Ram and Prem Chandra has been recorded by the I.O. and after collecting ample and sufficient evidence against the accused appellant, charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter. It is also submitted that the incident of murder of the deceased was enjoyed by all the accused persons and it was also video-recorded by them. It is also submitted that the two brothers of the deceased namely, Ratan Pal and Kishnajar have also named the present accused appellant along with other co-accused persons, who were present on spot. It is also submitted that the deceased belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has been come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the co-accused Sanjay being Crl. Appeal No. 907 of 2024 has been dismissed vide order dated 5.4.2024 and appeal filed by co-accused Bhopal being Crl. Appeal No. 6612 of 2024 has been dismissed vide order dated 3.9.2024 by this Court. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant relates to the merits of this case, which cannot be dealt with at this stage. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Order Date :- 25.11.2024 ss
Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant made out a case for bail in a murder and SC/ST Act case where the lower court rejected the bail application?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Mohit
State of U.P.
Another
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
