Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94521 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 882 of 2022 Appellant :- Rohit Gurjar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secratery Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava,Mohammad Anas Raza,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava,Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta,G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Rohit Gurjar with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)(v)SC/ST Act, Police Station T. P. Nagar, District Meerut. 3. The F.I.R. of this case contains the allegations that the marriage of Aanchal, sister of the informant, was scheduled to be held on 29.06.2020 and preparation was going on. The main accused Sagar, nebourer of the informant, wanted to marry with Aanchal whereas his sister was not ready to marry him and on account of this reason on 27.06.2020 at about 11.45 A.M. Sagar, Ankit and Rohit Gurjar alongwith two unknown persons came by motorcycle and hurled abuses to the informant. The mother of the accused Sagar namely Smt. Rekha and Smt. Manju also came out of their house and all the accused persons started firing upon the informant side to pressurize them for marriage and inflicted gun shot injury upon his sister Aanchal and brother Raman and father of the informant as well, which resulted into instantaneous death of Aanchal and serious injuries were sustained by father and brother. His brother and father were taken to the hospital for treatment by him and his cousin Shivam but his father died on the way. F.I.R. was lodged the same day at 1.25 P.M. and after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is not plausible at all and all the allegations made against the accused appellant are false. It is next submitted that recovery of alleged country made pistol alongwith cartridges from the possession of the present appellant made by the police is a false and fabricated story. It is also submitted that all the witnesses of this case belong to the family of the informant and as such they are interested witnesses. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution story. It is also submitted that the accused appellant is not having any criminal history to his credit. He belongs to a respectable family having absolutely no motive to commit the alleged crime. The alleged injured witness Raman has also not corroborated the prosecution story given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and only to show good work the police falsely implicated the appellant in the present case. It is also submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.07.2020 for about almost five years, therefore, he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal. 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. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that this is a case where the present accused appellant in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons after forming an illegal and unlawful assembly caused the murder of the deceased Aanchal and accused Sagar, Ankit, Smt. Rekha and Smt. Manju caused injuries to the injured persons. During investigation, sufficient and ample evidence has been collected against him and now charge sheet has been submitted. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, witnesses of fact have also been recorded and they have supported the prosecution version in their testimony recorded before the trial court. It is next submitted that the accused appellant had a significant motive to do away the sister of the informant. The surviving injured person Raman in his statement given before the Investigating Officer has corroborated the prosecution version and has made specific statement before the Investigation Officer that the accused appellant had fired upon his father Raj Kumar whereas co-accused Rohit Gurjar opened fire upon Aanchal and co-accused Neeraj opened fire upon him and in this way he has explained the particular role of a particular accused. It is also submitted that this is not a case of parity because Criminal appeals have been allowed in the cases of co-accused Ankit, Prince Gurjar and Smt. Mnju but however, no role of firing has been assigned to them in the statement of the injured witness Raman. Since the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia, specific role attributed to different accused persons to make fire upon both the deceased and injured cannot be said to be after thought. 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, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and also considering the factual matrix of this matter wherein two persons shot dead and one person sustained serious firearm injury, the role played by the present accused in commission of the crime, the statement of the injured alongwith other witnesses of fact, medical evidence on record, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. 9. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make all possible endeavour for expeditious disposal of the present case without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad