Akhilesh Kumar Rathore @ Mangal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8431 of 2023 Appellant :- Akhilesh Kumar Rathore @ Mangal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Tufail Hasan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Tej Om Prakash Gupta Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the informant and perused the material placed on record. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated

28.06.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad in Session Trial No. 573 of 2022 (State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Rathore) arising out of Case Crime No. 560 of 2021 under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Ba)(1) S.C/S.T Act, Police Station Dakshin, District Firozabad. As per the FIR, there is an allegation that appellant on 31.10.2021 at around 9:00 p.m abused the informant with caste related words and had beaten him, entered in his house with country made pistol in which three persons sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case only due to village party bandi. It is further submitted that all the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. There are material contradictions in the statement of informant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellants have no criminal history. In case, the appellants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants and argued that appellant is named in the F.I.R and in the incident three persons sustained injuries. It is also submitted that the appellants have committed the offence under Sections of SC/ST Act since they have addressed with caste related words to the informant. The appellant is named in the FIR. As per the version of FIR they were armed with specific weapon at the time of incident. In this case three persons have sustained injuries. There is specific allegation that appellant addressed with caste related words to the informant, therefore, appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 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 appellants. Hence, in view of above consideration, the impugned order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court is affirmed. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The criminal appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Order Date :- 28.10.2023/PS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad