Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2292 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9846 of 2024 Appellant :- Jony Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hemant Kumar 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 23.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that son of the informant Brahmwati was missing but no report was lodged by the police and subsequently an application was moved by her to Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut alleging therein that her son Lakhan has been murdered and dead body has been received in Jalalabad (Muradnagar) Ghaziabad and she believes that eight accused persons have kidnapped and murdered her son. F.I.R. was lodged on 08.06.2024 and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged occurrence and no date, month, year or time of the incident has been mentioned in the F.I.R. which has been lodged very belatedly without any plausible explanation of delay. The accused appellant has not been identified during investigation. He had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. He is having no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 29.06.2024. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the bail application of the accused appellant, hence this appeal has been preferred. 5. On the other hand, learned learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the present accused appellant alongwith other co-accused persons kidnapped the son of the informant and subsequently he was shot dead and in order to disappear the evidence of murder, the dead body was thrown somewhere in Jalalabad and his face was also disfigured causing certain injuries. The Investigating Officer of the case also collected C.C.T.V. footage which prima facie shows the deceased in the company of accused persons whose names came into light including the present appellant and said evidence has been made part of the case diary. Vehicle No. U.P. 15 BQ 6799 was also used in the commission of crime by the present appellant Jony and co-accused Manveer. Co-accused Akash and his maternal Vineet Malik were also involved in the commission of crime and his vehicle No. UP 14CP 1822 was also used in the commission of crime. 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 learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that in the post mortem report of the deceased ten injuries were found on the person of the deceased and he died due to shock and haemorrhage due to antemortem firearm injuries. The statement of co-accused Vineet recorded by the Investigating Officer is available on record. The learned trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, 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 appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad