Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6714 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9972 of 2024 Appellant :- Rahul Negi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Dhuriya Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 22.8.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Muzaffarnagar and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 67 of 2024 under Sections 302 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and 2/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. . 3. The prosecution story, as culled out from the record, is that the deceased Jitendra @ Chuhia came to his house with his two friends, namely, Gagan Sharma and Rahul Negi, the present appellant, on 20.2.2024 at 9.00 p.m. and they came to the roof to have dinner and meanwhile they also went to the market. After coming from the market again they went to the roof. Informant and his another son Montu heard some noise from the roof at about 11.00 p.m. and they went there and saw one person catching hold the head of his son and the other one cut the neck of his son with knife which resulted into his instantaneous death and accused persons fled away. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now charge sheet has been submitted. 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. It is further submitted that it is a no evidence case against the present appellant. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence of murder. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. It is further submitted that F.I.R. in this matter has been lodged very belatedly and the inquest of the dead body of the deceased and the post mortem were performed prior to lodging of the F.I.R.. It is also submitted that the present appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the alleged crime. The alleged eye witnesses in their statements under Section 161 CrPC have given contradictory version from that of the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the alleged eye witnesses have failed to disclose as to who, out of the two accused persons, caught hold the deceased and who was the person who cut the neck of the deceased by knife. The alleged murder weapon 'knife' was retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the co-accused Gagan Sharma and not by the present appellant. It is also submitted that the said knife is a normal knife used in routine domestic affairs. There is no cogent evidence against the appellant on record. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit and only on the basis of suspicion he has been falsely implicated in this case. The Court concerned 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 23.2.2024. 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 the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for grant of bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community. The deceased and accused persons were friends. The I.O. during investigation has recovered the murder weapon 'knife' on the pointing out of the co-accused but the said co-accused Gagan Sharma confessed before the police that the weapon 'knife' was used by the present appellant in the commission of the crime. It is also submitted that the facts relating to the present occurrence have further been well explained by the informant in his subsequent statement. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has collected CCTV footage which shows the deceased going with both the accused persons and they had purchased wine from the shop of salesman Jaswant on 20.2.2024. The I.O. has also recovered incriminating articles i.e. clothing, wine etc. from the roof of the house of the informant. The I.O. has collected ample evidence against the appellant during investigation. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role of the appellant the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad