Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53293 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12807 of 2024 Appellant :- Satyabhan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Singh,Pooja Singh,Shailendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Satyabhan with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.8.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 69 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baah, District Agra. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 4. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the informant belongs to the caste of 'Jatav' and is aged about 76 years. On account of some dispute in respect of wheat crop on 18.4.2024 at about 11.00 a.m. the named accused persons, who belong to 'Thakur' caste, made an assault upon his son with intention to kill with the use of lathi, danda, spade and iron rod etc. He sustained serious injuries which resulted into his spontaneous death and his dead body was also thrown beneath the road. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now charge sheet has been submitted. 5. 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. Appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. The case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not complete in this matter and there is no clinching evidence against the present appellant. The entire prosecution story is bogus and baseless. In the F.I.R. five persons were falsely implicated whereas during investigation four of them were exonerated by the I.O. and charge sheet was submitted only against the present appellant. It is also submitted that the deceased himself was a person of criminal antecedents and the said fact has been admitted by the witness Smt. Rakhi, wife of the deceased, who has elaborated the prosecution version and has said that in the fateful night while her husband was working in the field she went to him and he left her on the road and at that time her cousin father-in-law was also coming. She did not return in the night and when the present appellant was enquired into, he refused and a suspicion arose in the mind of the wife of the deceased that her husband has been killed. She has fairly conceded that she often used to be in the contact of the present appellant and since the present appellant was eager to take her away with him and did not give any proper reply in connection with the whereabouts of the deceased, she had a belief that the murder of her husband has been committed by the present appellant. It is also submitted that the aforesaid statement of the wife of the deceased is totally wrong and baseless. It is further submitted that on the pointing out of the appellant recovery of iron rod (sabbal) has been claimed by the prosecution but as a matter of fact there is no FSL report on record in connection with the said sabbal. He has further submitted that both the sides had some inimical relations and the death of the deceased has been caused due to coma as a result of ante mortem injuries. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of this matter. Criminal history of the appellant has been properly explained. 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 26.4.2024. 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 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is further submitted that after thorough investigation in this matter the I.O. has found that it was only the appellant who was the principal offender and the implication of all the other co- accused persons was found to be false and for this reason no charge sheet was submitted against them. It is also submitted that cogent and ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. regarding the relations between the wife of the deceased and the present appellant and the present appellant was very curious to take away the wife of the deceased with him to which she refused. It is also submitted that the appellant and his associates were having grudge and animosity with the informant of this case and specific statement has been given by the informant in this case in this regard. It is also submitted that the murder weapon 'iron rod' (sabbal) has been retrieved by the police on the pointing of the present appellant. The appellant has a long criminal history to his credit and he is a man of criminal character. The offence is very grave and serious. 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, motive assigned to the appellant, long criminal history 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. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad