Ajay vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119683

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3346 of 2025

Appellant :- Ajay Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Tiwari,Sanjeet Kumar Yadav,Tripuresh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant- Ajay with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in Bail Application No. 937 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 474 of 2021 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Niwadi, District- Ghaziabad.

¶8

The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR is that the informant whose son, Amit/ deceased was in job outside the district Ghaziabad and on 6.9.2021 he was informed by some persons that a dead body has been found in a house behind Community Health Centre, Niwadi. The informant identified the dead body of his son Amit and he lodged the named FIR against accused Lilu and Ajay alleging that they had committed murder of his son. FIR was lodged on 6.9.2021 and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the present appellant and coaccused Lilu.

¶9

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 present case is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no witness to the fact that the murder of the deceased was committed by the appellant and only due to village animosity he has been falsely implicated by the co-accused of the

¶10

case. FIR is delayed by four days without any plausible explanation of the same. There is no eye-witness or public witness of the occurrence and even the evidence of last seen together is not available against the accused appellant. There is nothing in the FIR or in the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the present appellant was already known to them. In fact he has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of being friend of co-accused Lilu. The name of the appellant is found only in the deposition of the informant and his wife while recording their evidence before the Court but they have stated that they do not know the present appellant. The evidence of some witnesses of fact has already been recorded before the trial Court but there is no substance in their evidence so far as the participation of the present appellant in the alleged crime is concerned. In fact the real dispute was between the informant and the deceased on one side co-accused Lilu on the other who has made an alleged confession before the police implicating the present appellant falsely in this case.

¶11

It is further submitted that the police recorded alleged confessional statement of the appellant wherein he stated that the murder of the deceased was committed by him and co-accused Lilu who administered large quantity of wine to the deceased and Lilu put into an old red cloth in the mouth of the deceased and then both of them committed his murder and co-accused Lilu also cut the hand of deceased with knife and in furtherence of the said confessional statement the police has shown a recovery of the same red colour cloth on the pointing out of the present appellant from the house of one Jaipal Singh but the story of whole confessional statement and the recovery is totally false and concocted made by the police and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery on the pointing out of the appellant. It is further submitted that when the dead body was recovered by the police no red cloth was found near the dead body whereas according to the alleged confessional statement of the present appellant red cloth was thrown in the same room where the alleged murder was committed but subsequently the police has shown the recovery of the aforesaid cloth on the pointing out of the appellant from the house of Jaipal Singh. 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 20.9.2021. 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.

¶12

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 21.02.2025. It is further submitted that cogent and reliable evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the present appellant and on the basis of the same charge sheet was filed against the appellant. In the post mortem report the cause of death has been found as shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. It is further submitted that the informant had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant of this case. The appellant along with main accused Lilu has committed the murder of young son of the informant.

¶13

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.

¶14

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, also taking into account the fact that appellant has no criminal history to his credit, the quality of evidence collected by the I.O. against the appellant, lack of last seen together evidence against the appellant, 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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.

¶17

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Fhd

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Priyanka Nagar @ Anjali and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Alisha Parveen vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Chandrajeet Prasad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Narayan Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vivek Kumar Maurya Alias Vivek Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another