Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33722 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9390 of 2024 Appellant :- Dayaram Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Notice has been served upon opposite party no.2, however none appears on his behalf. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Dayaram Yadav with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set-aside the bail rejection order dated 13.3.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur in Bail Application No.88 of 2023 moved in Special Session Trial No.258 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2022 under Sections 302 IPC and 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sarpataha, District Jaunpur. Further prayer has been made to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 4. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 10.10.2022 at about 5:00 P.M. when the deceased was lying on a cot, the appellant in an inebriated condition came over there and made several lathi blows upon the deceased hurling abuses to him which resulted into the instantaneous death of the deceased, who was tauji of the informant. F.I.R. was lodged. Inquest and postmortem proceedings took place. After investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against the accused appellant. 5. 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 also submitted that the whole prosecution story is bogus and concocted. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation and the statement of P.W.1, the only witness in the court. It is also submitted that in his deposition before the court, P.W.1 Jilajeet states that the appellant after causing death of the deceased was caught red-handed on spot but however there is nothing on record to show that at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. the appellant was also taken to the police station. It is also submitted that the story of recovery of murder weapon is false and concocted story of the police. It is also submitted that the present appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. Although the charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter under section 302 IPC but as a matter of fact it is an admitted case of the prosecution that at the time of the incident, the appellant was in an inebriated condition. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 16.10.2022 having no criminal history to his credit. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the present appeal and it has been vehemently argued that P.W.1 Jilajeet although is the solitary eyewitness of the incident but in his statement given to the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also in his testimony recorded before the court, he has specifically alleged that the fatal blows with the aid of lathi were inflicted upon the deceased by the accused appellant. It is also submitted that there are some contradictory statements in the testimony of P.W.1 regarding the catching hold of the accused appellant but the specific role of assault alleged against the appellant is not falsified by the said contradictory statements. It is also submitted that the I.O. has collected ample evidence during investigation against the appellant. There was no possibility of any false implication of the appellant. It is also submitted that the ground of false implication taken by the accused appellant in the affidavit is only a bald and bogus statement and no date, time and even the amount which was borrowed by the accused appellant has been disclosed by him. It is also submitted that the deceased belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. 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. 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. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the bail rejection order carefully. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties, nature of offence, complicity of accused and keeping in view that it is an eyewitness account and a murder has taken place by the aid of lathi which has been retrieved from the possession of the appellant and also 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 anticipatory bail rejection order and release the accused appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad