Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17139 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12368 of 2024 Appellant :- Harsh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- A.Z.Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. 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 02.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur in Case Crime No. 73 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. in brief is that on 02.03.2023 Sanjeev Kumar, brother-in-law of the informant had gone to meet his sister to Ramnagar Malipur Road and when he came out of the house at about 11.00 A.M. two tenants residing in the lower portion of his sister's house shot fire upon him and gun shot injury was inflicted in his abdomen. Sanjeev Kumar had already informed the informant that he had quarrel with both the tenants on or before when he has visited his sister's house. Due to this animosity both the accused persons shot fire upon Sanjeev Kumar. F.I.R. was lodged and during investigation, the injured expired and matter was converted into under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act. 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. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. of this case and only on the basis of suspicion he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer on the basis of unreliable and illegal evidence submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Earlier an appeal challenging the bail rejection order dated 19.07.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 8337 of 2022 was preferred by the appellan, which was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2023. It is next submitted that the additional ground in the instant appeal is that Pooja, the sister of the deceased, Raja, the brother-in-law of the deceased (Jeeja), Subham, the brother-in-law of the deceased and Neetu, wife of the deceased have been examined and in their testimony they have not supported the prosecution version and no guilt of the appellant is proved on the basis of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. It is next submitted that Pooja has made categorical statement before the court that the appellant, who was present in the court, was not present at the place of occurrence and further stated that she had not seen anyone opening fire. Rest witnesses also do not support the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 06.03.2023 having 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. 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 as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and it has been argued that only on the basis of statements of some witnesses, who allegedly do not support the prosecution case, bail cannot be granted to the appellant looking to the seriousness of the offence. It is further argued that the prosecution witness Subham, who took the deceased in injured condition to the hospital, had made categorical statement that on the way to the hospital the deceased, the then injured, told him categorically that the firearm injury was caused to him by Harsh and Raja who live in the lower portion of the house of his sister Pooja. It is also argued that since this was the statement made by the deceased, the then injured himself is a relevant and material statement which can be taken as a dying declaration made by the deceased. It is next argued that some other relevant witnesses are still about to be produced before the court. 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role of the appellant, particularly keeping in view of the statement made by the deceased when he was injured to the witness Subham, this Court is of the opinion that no ground for bail is made out and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad