HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1214 of 2023 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant today in the Court, the same is taken on record. 2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, rejecting the bail application of the appellant Pritam Singh, who is in custody in Case Crime No. 421 of 2022, under Sections 364 A, 302, 147, 149, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rath, District- Hamirpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Perused the record. 4. The prosecution case, as set out in the F.I.R. lodged by Jagmohan on 18.08.2022, is that his 17-year-old grandson, Sarvesh Kumar, was abducted on 16.08.2022 near a bridge at Charkhari Road by two persons, later identified as Alok Kumar and Jitendra Kumar, who demanded ransom of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is further alleged that two other individuals, namely Kilta alias Bhansingh and Pravendra, were also involved. On 18.08.2022, the dead body of Sarvesh Kumar was recovered from a forest near Shankar Shala, bearing multiple injuries. The complainant attributed responsibility for the abduction and murder to the named accused and sought legal action. 5. The post-mortem report records nine injuries, including fractures, on the body of the deceased, establishing homicidal death. The prosecution case further alleges that a group of eight accused persons systematically executed the crime of abduction for ransom and murder. The present appellant, though not named in the initial F.I.R., has been charge-sheeted, and a stick alleged to have been used in the assault was recovered on his disclosure statement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the complainant suppressed facts regarding the victim's alleged criminal activities. Counsel for the appellant argues that Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ram Kishor Gupta, Shiv Shankar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Virendra Singh Chauhan Preetam Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) the prosecution case is based on a coerced confession, that the recovery of the stick is inadmissible, and that the witness Narendra is unreliable as he is a delayed witness. It is also urged that the appellant is a farmer with no role in the incident and that his continued detention is causing grave hardship. It is further submitted that appellant is in jail since 29.08.2022 having criminal history of five cases satisfactorily explained in the supplementary affidavit. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail and submitted that the case involves the abduction of a minor for ransom, followed by his brutal murder. The medical evidence, recovery of weapon, and the appellant's role disclosed during investigation, coupled with his criminal history, strongly connect him with the crime. Considering the gravity of the charges under Sections 364-A and 302 I.P.C., as well as the applicability of Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, no ground for bail is made out. It is further submitted that the appellant has criminal antecedents of five cases and he is a hardcore criminal. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the deceased was a 17-year-old minor abducted for ransom and murdered in a most heinous and brutal manner. The post-mortem report shows nine ante-mortem injuries, including fractures, corroborating the prosecution version of violent assault. Though the appellant was not named in the initial F.I.R., investigation culminated in a charge-sheet against him. Recovery of a weapon (stick) pursuant to his statement further strengthens the prosecution case. The appellant is alleged to be part of an unlawful assembly of eight persons who conspired and executed the offence. The case involves extremely grave charges, attracting the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act against grant of anticipatory bail, and requires strict scrutiny even in regular bail. 9. Considering the gravity of the offence, the manner in which the crime was executed, the nature of evidence collected against the appellant, and the fact that the trial is pending, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the appellant on bail. 10. The bail application of the appellant- Pritam Singh, is accordingly rejected. September 10, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 1214 of 2023 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad