Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14680 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11954 of 2024 Appellant :- Neha And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Girish Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Singh,Shivam Singh 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 appellants - Neha and Munni Chaturvedi with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection orders dated 21.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.5232 of 2024 (Neha Vs. State of U.P.) and Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.5233 of 2024 (Munni Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P.) and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No.0415 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), 115(2), 109 B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that due to some land dispute, on 26.10.2024 at about 2:30 P.M., the named accused persons Chotu Chaubey, Pradeep Chaubey, Mithlesh Chaubey and Sinku Chaubey came to the house of the informant and made an assault upon his son Deepu Chaudhari with the aid of knife, scissor, screwdriver and other sharp edged weapon and when the informant and his other family members came over there, the present appellants made an exhortation to the other accused persons to do away with the persons from the informant side. Sheela Chaudhari, Anshu Chaudhari, Banshilal and Choteylal, the family members of the informant, were also bitterly assaulted by the accused persons. Injured Deepu was taken to the hospital but could not survive. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started which is going on. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that due to a land dispute between the parties, the present appellants have been wrongly roped in this case. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the prosecution version. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. and even in the statement of the injured persons, no role of assault has been assigned to any of the present appellants. Role assigned to the appellants is of exhortation only. Both the appellants are ladies and they are having no criminal history to their credit and are languishing in jail since 28.10.2024. 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), Azamgarh. It is further submitted that 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. 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 A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that from the perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is clear that the present accused appellants not only made exhortation to the other accused persons to do away with the persons from the informant side but they also made an assault upon the family members of the informant. It is also submitted that in their statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant and other injured persons have categorically stated that the assault was made by the appellants as well. It is also submitted that the deceased was a boy of tender age and he was the only issue of the informant. He has sustained seven grievous injuries which have been shown in the postmortem report of the deceased and the cause of death has been shown as 'hemorrhagic shock' due to antemortem spleen injury. It is a case of daylight murder on a public place. The appellants were well known to the fact that the informant side belonged to SC/ST community, inspite of that they committed the alleged offence. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Offence is very grave and serious in nature wherein one young boy was done to death and four others sustained multiple injuries over their person, therefore, prayer for rejection of the bail application and dismissal of appeal as well has been made. 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. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for releasing the appellants on bail. A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 would show that the Court concerned has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case carefully while refusing to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellants. Thus, the bail rejection order dated 21.11.2024 does not suffer from any illegality and the same is affirmed. No ground is made out to release the accused appellant on bail by allowing the present appeal. 8. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad