Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41026 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11249 of 2024 Appellant :- Manit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Manit with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.9.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shamli and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 14 of 2024 under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Babri, District Shamli. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant / respondent no.2 as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. . 4. The prosecution story, as culled out from the F.I.R., is that on 14.2.2024 at about 2.00 p.m., Suraj, the son of the informant, was taken away by the present appellant from his house but after sometime the son of the informant came back to his house in bleeding condition and stated that the injuries have been caused to him by the present appellant. The victim belongs to SC/ST community whereas the accused appellant is not a member of SC/ST community. The police was informed and the injured was medically examined but could not survive. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing 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 the deceased was not a person of good character and had been indulged in the incidents of theft and robbery etc. On an earlier occasion when the buffalo of the appellant was theft by the deceased, he was caught hold on the spot and since he was repenting, no F.I.R. was lodged. On the basis of the said animosity the present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that there is no satisfactory last seen evidence against the present appellant. It is claimed that the murder weapon 'knife' was retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the present appellant but as a matter of fact no blood was found upon the knife and there is no FSL report on record in respect thereof. It is also submitted that though the police claims to the recovery of bloodstained cloth but the evidence of no blood on the murder weapon 'knife' takes the prosecution story into shadow of doubt. The present case rests upon the circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not complete. The appellant had no motive to do away with the deceased. It is also submitted that in the fateful evening the informant and the appellant both were taking liquor on the first floor of tube-well of Prempal and after sometime the appellant went to his house but the deceased continued consuming liquor and possibly he might fall down from the floor of tube-well and sustained serious injuries resulting into his death and some village witnesses, who were interrogated by the I.O. of the case, support this story in their statements given to the I.O. It is also submitted that the entire story of recovery of murder weapon 'knife' put forward by the prosecution is a false and concocted story of police. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version and six inch knife was not capable to inflict deep injuries, as found in the post mortem report. It is also submitted that the prosecution story contains the fact that before lodging of the F.I.R. the informant had come to know as to who were the real assailants. It is also submitted that there is no forensic report at all to connect the recovered 'knife' with the present crime. The appellant has no criminal history to his credit. 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 17.2.2024. 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. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant / respondent 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 assault was made with intention to kill. Ample and sufficient evidence has been collected by the I.O. of the case against the present appellant during investigation. There is a strong last evidence against the appellant and the informant had himself seen the appellant taking away the deceased with him. The time gap between the last seen and the recovery of dead body of the deceased is very narrow. It is further submitted that the deceased himself in injured condition returned to his house and disclosed the name of the present appellant for inflicting several injuries to him in the presence of the informant. There is absolutely no reason for false implication of the appellant in this case. Medical evidence corroborates the prosecution version. In the post mortem report cause of death has been found shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem stab injuries by sharp and pointed object. It is a case of murder of a tender age boy of 21 years. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. 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. 8. 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 fact that since the deceased sustained fatal injuries soon after he was taken away by the appellant from his house and last evidence as such was available against him, it may be taken as a strong ground against the present 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. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 10. It is made clear that the submissions / observation made in this order are only for deciding the bail application / appeal and the trial court shall not be influenced in any way with the said observations / submissions while deciding the trial. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 /safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad