IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AMIT ALIAS RAJU ALIAS FLUD STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr Ms. Sheenu Sura, D.A.G., Haryana. Ms. Alisha Soni, Advocate for respondent No.2. MANISHA BATRA 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 short-the SC/ST Act Court of learned Additional Sessions Jud FIR No.281 dated 04.06.2023 registered under Sections 365 and 120 (Sections 323, 364, 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act Police Station Saran, District Faridabad, regular bail as filed by the appellant had been dismissed. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant members was residing in a rented accommodation at village Saran brother-Yogesh was also residing as a tenant with his family members IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S No. Reserved on Date of decision AMIT ALIAS RAJU ALIAS FLUD Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. B.K. Majoka, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Sheenu Sura, D.A.G., Haryana. Ms. Alisha Soni, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the SC/ST Act), challenging the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad FIR No.281 dated 04.06.2023 registered under Sections 365 and 120 (Sections 323, 364, 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act Police Station Saran, District Faridabad, whereby, an regular bail as filed by the appellant had been dismissed. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant-Reema alleging therein that she along with his family members was residing in a rented accommodation at village Saran Yogesh was also residing as a tenant with his family members IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH No.447 of 2025 Reserved on: 08.05.2025 Date of decision : 09.05.2025 …. Appellant Versus …. Respondents MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sheenu Sura, D.A.G., Haryana. Ms. Alisha Soni, Advocate for respondent No.2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for , challenging the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the ge, Faridabad in case arising out of FIR No.281 dated 04.06.2023 registered under Sections 365 and 120-B of IPC, (Sections 323, 364, 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act), at whereby, an application for grant of regular bail as filed by the appellant had been dismissed. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged ma alleging therein that she along with his family members was residing in a rented accommodation at village Saran. Her Yogesh was also residing as a tenant with his family members, in the The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14 A of the (for , challenging the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the in case arising out of B of IPC, , at application for grant of Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged ma alleging therein that she along with his family . Her in the Jyoti 2025.05.09 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document same house and her brother Both Rinku and Yogesh used to do work of fixing tiles. She alleged that on the evening of 03.06.202 that they were telephonically called by one Asim at his shop situated at New Janta Colony, Dabua R left the house but did not return till late her husband informing that Yogesh and himself had been abducted by the abovesaid Asim who had taken them towa showing the site. He also informed that the above said Asim and his accomplices had physically vehicle to Khurja (U.P.). Rinku had somehow, saved himself by jumping from the vehicle but Yogesh was still in custody of abductors. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During the investigation, the co appellant were arrested from Khurja on 04.06.2023 two other accused namely, Kalu Kumar and Dharampal was also arrested on the same day. The appellant and other accused suffered disclosure statement to the effect that they had killed Yogesh and had buried his dead body under the sand. Offences under Section 302 and 201 of IPC were added. The accused Dharampal and Kalu Kumar got the dead body of Yogesh recovered from village Rajwaha, District Bulandshahr, U.P. and the same was identified by his family members. Post mortem examination and inq conducted. The appellant got recovered an amount of the place of occurrence. The other CRA-S No.447 of 2025 same house and her brother-in-law namely, Rinku had been re Both Rinku and Yogesh used to do work of fixing tiles. She alleged that on the evening of 03.06.2023, her brother-Yogesh and brother that they were telephonically called by one Asim at his shop situated at New , Dabua Road as he had some work for them. Both of them had left the house but did not return till late. At about 11 pm her husband informing that Yogesh and himself had been abducted by the abovesaid Asim who had taken them towards Ballabhgarh on the pretext of site. He also informed that the above said Asim and his had physically assaulted him and Yogesh and had taken them in a vehicle to Khurja (U.P.). Rinku had somehow, saved himself by jumping from vehicle but Yogesh was still in custody of abductors. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During the investigation, the co-accused Shmim Malik and the appellant were arrested from Khurja on 04.06.2023 two other accused namely, Kalu Kumar and Dharampal was also arrested on the same day. The appellant and other accused suffered disclosure statement to the effect that they had killed Yogesh and had buried his dead body under nces under Section 302 and 201 of IPC were added. The accused Dharampal and Kalu Kumar got the dead body of Yogesh recovered from village Rajwaha, District Bulandshahr, U.P. and the same was identified by his family members. Post mortem examination and inq conducted. The appellant got recovered an amount of the place of occurrence. The other co-accused were involved in the occurrence S No.447 of 2025 -2- law namely, Rinku had been residing with her. Both Rinku and Yogesh used to do work of fixing tiles. She alleged that on the Yogesh and brother-in-law Rinku told her that they were telephonically called by one Asim at his shop situated at New oad as he had some work for them. Both of them had t about 11 pm, Rinku made a call to her husband informing that Yogesh and himself had been abducted by the rds Ballabhgarh on the pretext of site. He also informed that the above said Asim and his him and Yogesh and had taken them in a vehicle to Khurja (U.P.). Rinku had somehow, saved himself by jumping from vehicle but Yogesh was still in custody of abductors. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were accused Shmim Malik and the appellant were arrested from Khurja on 04.06.2023. On their identification and two other accused namely, Kalu Kumar and Dharampal was also arrested on the same day. The appellant and other accused suffered disclosure statements to the effect that they had killed Yogesh and had buried his dead body under nces under Section 302 and 201 of IPC were added. The accused Dharampal and Kalu Kumar got the dead body of Yogesh recovered from village Rajwaha, District Bulandshahr, U.P. and the same was identified by his family members. Post mortem examination and inquest proceedings were conducted. The appellant got recovered an amount of `1500/- and demarcated accused were involved in the occurrence siding with her. Both Rinku and Yogesh used to do work of fixing tiles. She alleged that on the law Rinku told her that they were telephonically called by one Asim at his shop situated at New oad as he had some work for them. Both of them had Rinku made a call to her husband informing that Yogesh and himself had been abducted by the rds Ballabhgarh on the pretext of site. He also informed that the above said Asim and his him and Yogesh and had taken them in a vehicle to Khurja (U.P.). Rinku had somehow, saved himself by jumping from After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were accused Shmim Malik and the and two other accused namely, Kalu Kumar and Dharampal was also arrested on s to the effect that they had killed Yogesh and had buried his dead body under nces under Section 302 and 201 of IPC were added. The accused Dharampal and Kalu Kumar got the dead body of Yogesh recovered from village Rajwaha, District Bulandshahr, U.P. and the same was identified by his uest proceedings were and demarcated accused were involved in the occurrence Jyoti 2025.05.09 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document were also arrested. On 04.08.2023, statements of Rinku, Ramesh Chand who is the father of the deceased Yogesh were recorded wherein they alleged that the appellant along with co deceased belonged to the schedule caste. Offences under Section 323, 364 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST 365 of IPC was deleted. Investigation stands concluded and the appellant along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of offence Sections 302. 323, 201, 364 read with Section 3(2)(va) of t appellant had filed an application for grant of regular bail which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 and feeling aggrieved, present appeal has been filed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant th order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned trial Court failed to observe that he had been falsely implicated in this case. No injury on the person of victim had been attributed to him. The complainant, he husband and the eye witness they have not implicated the appellant in commission of subject offences. He is in custody since long. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. The trial would take considerab crime has not been established. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be accepted. 5. Per contra respondent No.2 has argued that there are grave allegations against the appellant. His complicity in the crime stands established from the material CRA-S No.447 of 2025 were also arrested. On 04.08.2023, statements of Rinku, Ramesh Chand who is ather of the deceased Yogesh were recorded wherein they alleged that the appellant along with co-accused had uttered deceased belonged to the schedule caste. Offences under Section 323, 364 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act were added and offence under Section 365 of IPC was deleted. Investigation stands concluded and the appellant along accused is facing trial for commission of offence 323, 201, 364 read with Section 3(2)(va) of t appellant had filed an application for grant of regular bail which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 and feeling aggrieved, present appeal has been filed. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant th order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned trial Court failed to observe that he had been falsely implicated in this case. No injury on the person of victim had been attributed to him. The complainant, he husband and the eye witness/victim Rinku have already been examined and they have not implicated the appellant in commission of subject offences. He is in custody since long. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. The trial would take considerable time to conclude. His crime has not been established. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be accepted. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned couns respondent No.2 has argued that there are grave allegations against the appellant. His complicity in the crime stands established from the material S No.447 of 2025 -3- were also arrested. On 04.08.2023, statements of Rinku, Ramesh Chand who is ather of the deceased Yogesh were recorded wherein they alleged that the caste derogatory remarks. The deceased belonged to the schedule caste. Offences under Section 323, 364 of Act were added and offence under Section 365 of IPC was deleted. Investigation stands concluded and the appellant along accused is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under 323, 201, 364 read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant had filed an application for grant of regular bail which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 and feeling aggrieved, present It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned trial Court failed to observe that he had been falsely implicated in this case. No injury on the person of victim had been attributed to him. The complainant, her Rinku have already been examined and they have not implicated the appellant in commission of subject offences. He is in custody since long. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. le time to conclude. His participation in the crime has not been established. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be accepted. , learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that there are grave allegations against the appellant. His complicity in the crime stands established from the material were also arrested. On 04.08.2023, statements of Rinku, Ramesh Chand who is ather of the deceased Yogesh were recorded wherein they alleged that the . The deceased belonged to the schedule caste. Offences under Section 323, 364 of Act were added and offence under Section 365 of IPC was deleted. Investigation stands concluded and the appellant along punishable under he SC/ST Act. The appellant had filed an application for grant of regular bail which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 and feeling aggrieved, present at the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned trial Court failed to observe that he had been falsely implicated in this case. No r Rinku have already been examined and they have not implicated the appellant in commission of subject offences. He is in custody since long. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. in the crime has not been established. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned el for respondent No.2 has argued that there are grave allegations against the appellant. His complicity in the crime stands established from the material Jyoti 2025.05.09 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document collected during the investigation. It is therefore, argued that the appeal do not deserve to be allo 6. Rival submissions raised by the parties have been heard. 7. The appellant is alleged to have hatched a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused alleged to have assaulted them. As per furt murder of the victim disappearance copies of sworn deposition victims, PW-2 Ree complainant. A perusal of testimony of PW deposed that on 03.06.2024, on calling of one unknown person, he had gone along with Yogesh and was taken to some unknown p assaulted but he further stated that while on the way, the victim Yogesh and himself found opportunity and jumped from the car and they directions. He denied that the appellant and co had abducted him and assaulted him. He was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor but no incriminating evidence appears to complainant PW shown to have supported the prosecution case at all and both of them have also turned hostile. which as such emerges that the appellant was not the person who had got the dead body of the victim recovered. The trial is likely to take time to conclude. CRA-S No.447 of 2025 collected during the investigation. It is therefore, argued that the appeal do not deserve to be allowed. Rival submissions raised by the parties have been heard. The appellant is alleged to have hatched a criminal conspiracy accused and to have abducted the victim Yogesh and Rinku and alleged to have assaulted them. As per further allegations, they committed murder of the victims Yogesh and concealed his dead body to cause disappearance of evidence of murder. The appellant has placed on record copies of sworn depositions recorded by PW 2 Reema and PW-3 Malkhan Singh complainant. A perusal of testimony of PW-1 Rinku reveals that though he deposed that on 03.06.2024, on calling of one unknown person, he had gone along with Yogesh and was taken to some unknown p assaulted but he further stated that while on the way, the victim Yogesh and himself found opportunity and jumped from the car and they directions. He denied that the appellant and co bducted him and assaulted him. He was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor but no incriminating evidence appears to have been extracted from his testimony. Similarly, the complainant PW-2 Reema and her husband shown to have supported the prosecution case at all and both of them have also They have not implicated the appellant at all. The position which as such emerges that the appellant was not the person who had got the dead body of the victim recovered. The trial is likely to take time to conclude. S No.447 of 2025 -4- collected during the investigation. It is therefore, argued that the appeal do not Rival submissions raised by the parties have been heard. The appellant is alleged to have hatched a criminal conspiracy to have abducted the victim Yogesh and Rinku and her allegations, they committed Yogesh and concealed his dead body to cause of evidence of murder. The appellant has placed on record PW-1 Rinku who was one of the 3 Malkhan Singh who is the husband of the 1 Rinku reveals that though he deposed that on 03.06.2024, on calling of one unknown person, he had gone along with Yogesh and was taken to some unknown place and that they were assaulted but he further stated that while on the way, the victim Yogesh and himself found opportunity and jumped from the car and they ran in different directions. He denied that the appellant and co-accused were the persons who bducted him and assaulted him. He was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor but no incriminating extracted from his testimony. Similarly, the 2 Reema and her husband PW-3 Malkhan Singh are not shown to have supported the prosecution case at all and both of them have also They have not implicated the appellant at all. The position which as such emerges that the appellant was not the person who had got the dead body of the victim recovered. The trial is likely to take time to conclude. collected during the investigation. It is therefore, argued that the appeal do not The appellant is alleged to have hatched a criminal conspiracy to have abducted the victim Yogesh and Rinku and her allegations, they committed Yogesh and concealed his dead body to cause of evidence of murder. The appellant has placed on record Rinku who was one of the who is the husband of the 1 Rinku reveals that though he deposed that on 03.06.2024, on calling of one unknown person, he had gone that they were assaulted but he further stated that while on the way, the victim Yogesh and in different accused were the persons who bducted him and assaulted him. He was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor but no incriminating extracted from his testimony. Similarly, the 3 Malkhan Singh are not shown to have supported the prosecution case at all and both of them have also They have not implicated the appellant at all. The position which as such emerges that the appellant was not the person who had got the dead body of the victim recovered. The trial is likely to take time to conclude. Jyoti 2025.05.09 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Keeping in view the nature of the evid of testimonies of PW debatable question as to whether the subject offences were committed by the appellant. As such, a case is made out at this stage to extend be the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and appellant is ordered to the released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It is however, clarified that nothing discussed above shall be considered to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Further, in case, appellant is found to be involved in any other offence, the respondents are at liberty to seek cancellation of b 8. Sin also stands disp 09.05.2025 Jyoti-IV CRA-S No.447 of 2025 Keeping in view the nature of the evidence that has come on record in the form of testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3, this Court is of the opinion that it is a debatable question as to whether the subject offences were committed by the appellant. As such, a case is made out at this stage to extend be the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and appellant is ordered to released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It is however, clarified that nothing discussed above shall be considered to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Further, in case, appellant is found to be involved in any other offence, the respondents are at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in this case. nce the main case is disposed posed of. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No S No.447 of 2025 -5- ence that has come on record in the form 3, this Court is of the opinion that it is a debatable question as to whether the subject offences were committed by the appellant. As such, a case is made out at this stage to extend benefit of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and appellant is ordered to released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that nothing discussed above shall be considered to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Further, in case, appellant is found to be involved in any other offence, the respondents are at liberty to seek of, pending application, if any (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No ence that has come on record in the form 3, this Court is of the opinion that it is a debatable question as to whether the subject offences were committed by the nefit of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and appellant is ordered to released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to his furnishing , however, clarified that nothing discussed above shall be considered to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Further, in case, appellant is found to be involved in any other offence, the respondents are at liberty to seek y Jyoti 2025.05.09 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document