Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112884 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9096 of 2024 Appellant :- Sunil Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ratnendu Kumar Singh,A Kumar Srivastava,Aakansha Singh Chandraul,Brijesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Yadav,G.A.,Karunesh Pratap Singh Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant - Sunil Yadav to set aside the bail rejection order dated 16.10.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 562 of 2023, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 26.7.2023 at 7.00 a.m. when the informant was sitting in his house, the named accused persons Sunil Yadav, Arvind Yadav, Ram Nath Yadav, Rajesh, Arvind, Govind, Monu Yadav and five unknown miscreants with common object came and hurled abuses with caste related remarks and when it was protested by the informant side, they started attacking with lathi danda and Raj Kishore, father of the informant, was shot dead on the spot and cousin Surya Prakash and uncle Arvind also sustained serious injuries. The injured persons were medically examined and post mortem of the deceased was performed wherein the cause of death of the deceased was found 'syncope' and some other injuries were also found. F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 10.43 a.m. 4. 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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. It is also submitted that it is a case of murder of the deceased by single shot injury but in the F.I.R. no specific role of firing has been assigned to any of the accused persons. It is further submitted that as per the F.I.R. the offence was committed by seven named and five other unknown persons but during investigation the name of some other persons were also added by the informant. It is also submitted that it is not plausible at all that the incident was caused by a number of persons and only one gunshot injury was inflicted upon the body of the deceased and injuries were sustained only by two injured persons. During investigation one lady injured Bhona Devi also came forward but as per the contents of the F.I.R. she was not the injured in this case. The entire prosecution story is unnatural and improbable. It is also submitted that the grand father of the present appellant already died in the year 2017 but he was also named as an accused in this case and it has been admitted by the informant himself in his statement given to the I.O. It is further submitted that the I.O. of this case has collected some CCTV footage of the incident but so far as the present appellant is concerned no specific role has been found on his part in the said CCTV footage. It is also submitted that according to the prosecution story he came on the spot with a Bolero Car but he has been shown on foot in the CCTV footage. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are also not natural and probable, particularly keeping in view the number of accused persons, who all made assault with the aid of lathi danda together. It is further submitted that the entire story of the recovery of murder weapon 'country made pistol' on the pointing out of the present appellant is a false and concocted story of the prosecution. It is also submitted that all the witnesses of the prosecution are unreliable and they are not independent witnesses but are the family members or friends of the informant. It is also submitted that the accused appellant is in jail since 27.7.2023 but no charge has been framed in the matter till now and he is an under trial and is languishing in jail without any proceeding in the session trial. Criminal history of the appellant has been explained sufficiently. It is further submitted that the trial court 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. It is submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to S.C./S.T. community. It is also submitted that the accused persons came on the spot with so many assailants and that is why the name of all the persons and their participation in the occurrence could not be sufficiently mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that specific role to open fire upon the deceased has been assigned to the present appellant in his statement under Section 161 CrPC by the informant, eye witness Subhash Prasad, who categorically stated that the fire was made by accused Sunil Yadav upon the deceased resulting into his instantaneous death. The accused persons are influential persons whereas the informant side belongs to weaker section of the society and they are the members of SC/ST community. It is also submitted that one day before the main occurrence at 10.00 p.m. when the persons from informant side were enjoying a birth day party on open road an altercation took place between them and the accused persons including the present appellant who were coming with a tractor trolley and that was the cause for the main offence which occurred just in the next morning. It is further submitted that no injury has been caused to any person from the accused side whereas three persons sustained a number of injuries in the attack made by the appellant and his associates. It is also submitted that the eye witnesses of this case have fully corroborated the prosecution version. Medical evidence supports the prosecution case. The F.I.R. is prompt. There is no reason for false implication of the present appellant in this matter. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity or illegality and appeal is liable to fail. 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 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, the fact that the present accused appellant is the main assailant and he is the person who shot dead the deceased, as narrated by the witnesses of fact in their respective statements, 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. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 9. However, the trial court is directed to decide the trial of this case expeditiously, preferably within a period of two years without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad