Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29065 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9351 of 2024 Appellant :- Akash Ahlawat Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Ayush Mishra,Prabha Shanker Mishra,Vinay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hemant Kumar 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 - Akash Ahlawat with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.364 of 2024 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC and 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut. 2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Ayush Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Nitesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that son of the informant Brahmwati was missing but no report was lodged by the police and subsequently an application was moved by her to Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut alleging therein that her son Lakhan has been murdered and dead body has been received in Jalalabad (Muradnagar) Ghaziabad and she believes that eight accused persons have kidnapped and murdered her son. F.I.R. was lodged on 08.06.2024 and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet. 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. He has no concern with the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the alleged crime has been committed at a public place but however there is no independent witness of the alleged occurrence and no date, month, year or time of the incident has been mentioned in the F.I.R. which has been lodged very belatedly without any plausible explanation of delay. Only on the basis of suspicion / assumption of the informant, the appellant has been named in the F.I.R. alongwith seven other persons. Although motive has been shown that there was a love affair between the deceased and the sister of the appellant but the I.O. has failed to record any statement of the sister of appellant to corroborate the allegations levelled against the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant is having no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 10.06.2024. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the bail application of the accused appellant, hence this appeal has been preferred. 5. On the other hand, learned learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the present accused appellant alongwith other co-accused persons kidnapped the son of the informant and subsequently he was shot dead and in order to disappear the evidence of murder, the dead body was thrown somewhere in Jalalabad and his face was also disfigured causing certain injuries. The Investigating Officer of the case also collected C.C.T.V. footage which prima facie shows the deceased in the company of accused persons whose names came into light including the present appellant and said evidence has been made part of the case diary. Vehicle No. U.P. 15 BQ 6799 was also used in the commission of crime by the co-accused Jony and co-accused Manveer. Appellant Akash alongwith his maternal uncle Vineet Malik was very much involved in the commission of crime and his vehicle No. UP 14CP 1822 was also used in the commission of crime. The appellant is named in the F.I.R. The criminal appeal no.9846 of 2024 filed by the co-accused Jony, who was not named in the F.I.R., has been dismissed and bail has been refused by this Court vide order dated 6.1.2025. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that in the postmortem report of the deceased ten injuries were found on the person of the deceased and he died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem firearm injuries. The statement of co- accused Vineet recorded by the Investigating Officer is available on record. The learned trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. 8. Hence, having regard the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account the fact that the deceased belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has been come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, this Court finds that no ground is made out to allow the appeal, set-aside the bail rejection order and release the accused appellant on bail. The court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 08.08.2024 is affirmed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad