Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9257 of 2024 Appellant :- Budhavant Jaiswal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Yadav,P.K. Singh,Ram Pravesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Kant Mishra,G.A. 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 Budhavant Jaiswal against the bail rejection order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra in case crime no. 537 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C. and under Sections 3 2 (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. As per prosecution case on account of some animosity for some earlier case the applicant was pressurizing the father of the informant to make compromise, which was refused by his father. Being annoyed with the same, the father of the informant/opposite party was brutally assaulted by the present appellant in the court campus on 28.08.2023 at about 4.00 p.m. and the appellant also pressed his neck by his feet, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter the First Information Report was lodged on 14.09.2023. The investigation started and after completion of investigation chargesheet has been submitted. The matter was converted into sections 304, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 32(v) of SC/ST Act. The injured died during investigation. 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. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is false and fabricated and there is no cogent evidence on record regarding the guilt of the present accused appellant. It is also submitted that prosecution story is totally unreliable. It is also submitted that the offence is said to be committed in the court campus, which is a very busy place and several persons would be present at the time of offfence there. It is further submitted that the medical report of the deceased does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the death of the deceased has been occurred about 17 days after sustaining the injuries and during this period no statement of the injured was recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is also submitted that as per postmortem report the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury but the same postmortem report reveals that the deceased had sustained no such head injury as the prosecution claims. It is also submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged 17 days after the incident without any plausible explanation for delay. It is further submitted that it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was caused due to injuries allegedly caused by the appellant. The deceased was complaining only chest pain when he was brought to the doctor. It is further submitted that the appellant himself is a sick person and he is facing serious ailments and the medical reports thereof have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 05.1.2023. 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. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and submitted that ample evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the appellant including the statements of eye witnesses namely, Lavkush Kumar Keshari, Vikash Kumar Tripathi and Haridas, who have no enmity with the accused/appellant. Although there is delay in lodging the FIR but since the informant was busy in treatment of deceased that's why the delay in lodging the FIR occurred. It is further submitted that the death of the deceased was caused on account of injuries inflicted by the appellant in the occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. The deceased was a member of SC/ST community and this fact was well known to the appellant. He further submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 03.08.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 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 trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, 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. It is further directed that the appellant may apply for his better medical treatment in connection with his ailments to the Superintendent District Jail, Sonbhadra. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad