AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Usha Kumari, learned Spl. PP appearing for the State.
The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 28.07.2026 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in connection with Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 09 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short the “B.N.S.”) and section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
The appellant is named in F.I.R. and is in custody since 18.02.2026.
As per FIR, the brother of informant was murdered by some unknown miscreants, where the informant came to know about the occurrence on 01.02.2026 at about 7:30 A.M. It is alleged that one motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR07BL-1211 was found lying near to the dead body which belonged to the younger brother of the informant. As per FIR, police recovered three used cartridges near the dead body of the deceased and his mobile was also recovered from a maize field at some distance from the place of occurrence, where the deceased was murdered.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated with the present occurrence of murder merely on the basis of suspicion arising out of confessional statement of apprehended co-accused persons.
It is submitted that during course of investigation, other co-accused persons namely, Prince Kumar @ Lakhan, Raja Kumar and Golu Kumar were arrested and they confessed before the police that this appellant, during the occurrence, had fired on temporal region of the deceased causing his death.
It is submitted that in furtherance of aforesaid confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused persons, nothing incriminating transpired or surfaced during course of investigation as to connect the appellant with present occurrence of murder.
It is submitted that even the Call Detail Report (CDR) is not supporting any involvement of this appellant with the present crime in question.
While concluding argument, it is submitted that this appellant does not appears even remotely connected with the present occurrence, as the reason supplied by the prosecution behind occurrence speaks that the co-accused Prince Kumar was acquainted with one Anjali Kumari, who was the younger sister of one Anu, who was said to be in relationship with the deceased Priyanshu Raj @ Badal.
While concluding argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case is already completed, charge-sheet has been submitted and as such, there is no chance of tampering with evidence.
Explaining criminal antecedent of the appellant, it is submitted that prior to lodging the FIR, the criminal antecedent of the appellant was clean, but subsequently, he was implicated with one another criminal case, in which he was granted bail by the learned trial court itself.
It is also submitted that nothing transpired from the face of FIR which may suggest prima facie that occurrence took place out of atrocities as defined within the meaning of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, and therefore, lodging of the present case under the provision of SC/ST Act, 1989 is also bad in the eyes of law, as apparently the occurrence took place in the background of love affairs, not due to atrocities as defined under SC/ST Act.
Mrs. Usha Kumari, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, while opposing the prayer of bail of the appellant, submitted that investigation suggest active involvement of the appellant in the present occurrence of murder.
In view of the submissions, as made above and by taking note of fact as prima facie except suspicion arising out of confessional statement of apprehended co-accused persons, nothing incriminating surfaced against the appellant as to connect him with the present occurrence of murder, coupled with the fact that investigation of this case is already completed, where appellant remains in custody since 18.02.2026, accordingly, appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 09 of 2026, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai/concerned court, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C/Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
Accordingly, impugned order dated 28.07.2026 is set aside.
Hence, appeal stands allowed.