# Hamid Raza v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 569
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hamid-raza-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49478
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504, 506 - Scheduled Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)5 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 190 - Against summoning order -
Quashing of - As per FIR, on 03.09.2018,
while opposite party no.2 was going to his
fields, appellant allegedly assaulted him,
abused him using caste-related language
and threatened to kill him - The core issue
is
whether
Magistrate
can
summon
accused on printed proforma without
assigning reasons while taking cognizance
on police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
considering conditions under Chapter XIV
of Cr.P.C - Issuing summoning orders on
printed proforma without application of
judicial mind is objectionable and deserve
to be deprecated - Summoning accused is
a
serious
matter
and
must
reflect
consideration of facts and law - Impugned
order
passed
mechanically,
without
determining which offences were prima
facie made out against appellant and
contrary to settled judicial norms - Order
dated 06.04.2019 is cryptic, contrary to
law
laid
down
by
Supreme
Court,
consequently,
cognizance/summoning
order cannot be legally sustained, as
Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction
resulting in miscarriage of justice - Matter
remitted back. (Para 4, 13, 23, 24)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Hamid Raza Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
569
gangster. A person cannot be punished
without specifying the offence committed
by
him
which
would
justify
his
classification as a Gangster.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the impugned F.I.R. is illegal being
contrary to the provision of Gangsters Act
by failing to mention the relevant section of
the Act. Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. is
hereby quashed.

11.

However,
the
respondent
authorities are free to register a F.I.R.
against accused, in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 569
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2021

Hamid Raza ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Suman Lata, Anita Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504, 506 - Scheduled Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)5 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 190 - Against summoning order -
Quashing of - As per FIR, on 03.09.2018,
while opposite party no.2 was going to his
fields, appellant allegedly assaulted him,
abused him using caste-related language
and threatened to kill him - The core issue
is
whether
Magistrate
can
summon
accused on printed proforma without
assigning reasons while taking cognizance
on police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
considering conditions under Chapter XIV
of Cr.P.C - Issuing summoning orders on
printed proforma without application of
judicial mind is objectionable and deserve
to be deprecated - Summoning accused is
a
serious
matter
and
must
reflect
consideration of facts and law - Impugned
order
passed
mechanically,
without
determining which offences were prima
facie made out against appellant and
contrary to settled judicial norms - Order
dated 06.04.2019 is cryptic, contrary to
law
laid
down
by
Supreme
Court,
consequently,
cognizance/summoning
order cannot be legally sustained, as
Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction
resulting in miscarriage of justice - Matter
remitted back. (Para 4, 13, 23, 24)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dilawar Vs St. of Har., (2018) 16 SCC 521

2. Menka Gandhi Vs U.O.I., AIR 1978 SC 597

3. Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs St. of Bihar,
(1980)1 SCC 81

4. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs R.S. Nayak, (1992)
1 SCC 225

5. P. Ramchandra Rao Vs St. of Karn., (2002) 4
SCC 578

6. Bhushan Kumar & anr. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)
& anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747

7. Basaruddin & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2011
(1) JIC 335 (All) (LB)

8. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923, (Para 47)
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs St. of Mah. ,
(1971) 2 SCC 654

10. Ankit Vs St. of U.P. & anr. passed in
Application U/S 482 No.19647 of 2009 decided
on 15.10.2009, (Para 8)

11. Kavi Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. & anr. passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010

12. Abdul Rasheed & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
2010 (3) JIC 761 (All), (Paras 6, 7)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Suman Lata, learned
counsel for the appellant as well as learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. This Criminal Appeal under
Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act,
1989
(hereinafter
referred
as
?S.C./S.T. Act?) has been preferred against
the impugned orders dated 08.01.2021 and
06.04.2019 passed by Court of learned
Sessons Judge (Court No. 2), Raebareli, in
Criminal Case No. 92 of 2019, State v.
Hamid Raza, Case Crime No. 212 of 2018
under Sections 323,504,506, I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, and 3(2)5 of
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Shivratganj,
District Amethi, and Chargesheet No. A53
of 2018 dated 25.9.2018 submitted in the
said case.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that on 03.09.2018 at 14:57 hrs. the
opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against
the appellant which was registered as Case
Crime No. 0212 of 2018, under Sections
323,504,506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da and
3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act.

4. As per the prosecution version of
the F.I.R., when the opposite party no.2-
Ramdaas was going to see the fields on
3.9.2018, the appellant came there, beaten
him, abused with caste languages and want
away from there giving life-threats to him.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the entire prosecution
story is false. No such incident took place
and the appellant have been falsely
implicated in the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that before arguing the case
on merits, he wants to draw attention of this
Court on the charge-sheet dated 25.9.2018
submitted by the Investigating Officer in
mechanical
manner
under
Sections
323,504,506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da,
3(1)Dha, and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, copy
of the same is filed as Annexure No. 3 to
the affidavit, whereas he further submits
that on the charge-sheet, the learned
Magistrate
had
taken
cognizance
on
06.04.2019 and the case was numbered as
Case No. 92 of 2019. The cognizance was
taken on the printed proforma by filling the
sections of IPC, dates and number and in
the said proforma the learned Magistrate
without
assigning
any
reason
has
summoned the appellant for facing trial.
Copy of the cognizance order is also
annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that by the order dated
06.04.2019 cognizance taken by the learned
Magistrate on printed proforma, without
assigning any reason is abuse of process of
law and the same is without application of
mind and is in a routine manner.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that after submission of
charge sheet and cognizance order on
printed proforma, the appellant has been
12 All. Hamid Raza Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
571
summoned mechanically by order dated
06.04.2019 and the court below while
summoning the appellant has materially
erred and did not follow the dictum of law
as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various cases that summoning in
criminal case is a serious matter and the
court below without dwelling into material
and visualizing the case on the touch stone
of probability should not summon accused
person to face criminal trial. It is further
submitted that the court below has not
taken into consideration the material placed
before the trial court along with charge
sheet and, therefore, the trial court has
materially
erred
in
summoning
the
applicant. The court below has summoned
the appellant through a printed order, which
is wholly illegal.

9. It is vehemently urged by learned
counsel for the appellant that the impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
06.04.2019 is not sustainable in the eye of
law, as the same has been passed in a
mechanical manner without applying the
judicial mind, because on the face of record
itself
it
is
apparent
that
impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
06.04.2019 has been passed by the
Magistrate concerned on printed proforma
by filling up the gaps, therefore the same is
liable to be quashed by this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
has given much emphasis that if the
cognizance has been taken on the printed
proforma, the same is not sustainable.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State
submitted
that
considering
the
material evidences and allegations against
the appellant on record, as on date, as per
prosecution case, the cognizable offence
against the appellant is made out, therefore,
ppeal is liable to be dismissed but has not
denied that the leaned Magistrate has taken
cognizance on the printed proforma.
Accordingly, this case is being finally
decided at this stage without issuing notice
to opposite party no.2 and without calling
for a counter affidavit.

12. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

13. The main issue for consideration
before this Court is that whether the
learned Magistrate may summon the
accused person on a printed proforma
without assigning any reason and take
cognizance on police report filed under
Sections 173 of Cr.P.C. In this regard, it is
relevant to mention here that a Court can
take cognizance of an offence only when
condition
requisite
for
initiation
of
proceedings before it as set out in Chapter
XIV of the Code are fulfilled. Otherwise,
the Court does not obtain jurisdiction to
try the offences under section 190 (1) of
the Cr.P.C. provided that:

"subject to the provisions of this
Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and
any Magistrate of the second class specially
empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2),
may take cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence,

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer,
or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
may empower any Magistrate of the second
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
class to take cognizance under sub-section
(1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try."

14. At this juncture, it is fruitful to
have a look so far as the law pertaining to
summoning of the accused persons, by
taking cognizance on a police report filed
under section 173 of the Cr.P.C., is
concerned and the perusal of the case law
mentioned herein below would clearly
reveal that cognizance of an offence on
complaint is taken for the purpose of
issuing process to the accused. Since, it is a
process of taking judicial notice of certain
facts which constitute an offence, there has
to be application of mind as to whether the
material collected by the Investigating
Officer results in sufficient grounds to
proceed further and would constitute
violation of law so as to call a person to
appear before the criminal court to face
trial. This discretion puts a responsibility
on the magistrate concerned to act
judiciously keeping in view the facts of the
particular case as well as the law on the
subject and the orders of Magistrate does
not suffers from non-application of judicial
mind while taking cognizance of the
offence.

15. Fair and proper investigation is
the primary duty of the Investigating
Officer. No investigating agency can take
unduly
long
time
in
completing
investigation. There is implicit right under
Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn
encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry,
appeal, revision and retrial. There is clear
need
for
time
line
in
completing
investigation for having in-house oversight
mechanism wherein accountability for
adhering to lay down timeline, can be fixed
at different levels in the hierarchy, vide
Dilawar vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 16
SCC 521, Menka Gandhi vs. Union of
India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Hussainara
Khatoon (I) vs. State of Bihar, (1980)1
SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S.
Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and P.
Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnatka,
(2002) 4 SCC 578.

For the purposes of investigation,
offences are divided into two categories
"cognizable" and "non-cognizable". When
information of a cognizable offence is
received or such commission is suspected,
the proper police officer has the authority
to enter in the investigation of the same but
where the information relates to a noncognizable offence, he shall not investigate
it without the order of the competent
Magistrate. Investigation includes all the
proceedings under the Cr.P.C. for the
collection of evidence conducted by a
police officer or by any person other than a
Magistrate (who is authorised by a
Magistrate in his behalf). Investigation
consists of steps, namely (i) proceeding to
spot, (ii) ascertainment of the facts and
circumstances of the case, (iii) discovery
and arrest of the suspected offender, (iv)
collection of evidence relating to the
commission of the offence and (v)
formation of opinion as to whether on the
material collected therein to place the
accused before a Magistrate for trial and if
so to take necessary steps for the same by
filing a charge sheet under Section 173,
Cr.P.C., vide H.N. Rishbud vs. State of
Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196. Thereafter, the
learned Magistrate has to take cognizance
after application of judicial mind and by
reasoned order and not in mechanical
manner.

16. In the case of Bhushan Kumar and
Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.,
AIR 2012 SC 1747, the Hon'ble Apex
12 All. Hamid Raza Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
573
Court was pleased to observe that section
204 of the Code does not mandate the
Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for
issuance of summons. It clearly states that
if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient
ground for proceed. In the case of
Basaruddin & others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2011 (1) JIC 335 (All)(LB),
the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observed
as under:-

"From a perusal of the impugned
order,
it
appears
that
the
learned
Magistrate on the complaint filed by the
complainant has summoned the accused in
a mechanical way filling the date in the
typed proforma. Learned Magistrate while
taking cognizance of the offence on
complaint was expected to go through the
allegations made in the complaint and to
satisfy himself as to which offences were
prima facies, being made out against the
accused on basis of allegations made in the
complaint. It appears that the learned
Magistrate did not bother to go through the
allegations made in the complaint and
ascertain as to what offences were, prima
facie, being made out against the accused
on the basis of allegations made in the
complaint. Apparently, the impugned order
passed by the learned Magistrate suffers
from non-application of mind while taking
cognizance of the offence. The impugned
order is not well reasoned order, therefore,
the same is liable to be quashed and the
petition deserves to be allowed and the
matter may be remanded back to the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lakhimpur Kheri with direction to him to
go through the allegations made in the
complaint and ascertain as to what
offences against the accused were prima
facie being made out against the accused
on the basis of allegations made in the
complaint and pass fresh order, thereafter,
he will proceed according to law."

17. In the case of Bhushan Kumar
and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747, the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe that
section 204 of the Code does not mandate
the Magistrate to explicitly state the
reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly
states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, then the
summons may be issued. This section
mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion
as to whether there exists a sufficient
ground for summons to be issued but it is
nowhere mentioned in the section that the
explicit narration of the same is mandatory,
meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the
summons issued.

18. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR
2015 SC 923, the Hon,ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph no.47 of
the judgment as under:

"47.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
grounds
for
proceeding"
appearing in the Section are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the
said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself.."

19. In the case of Darshan Singh
Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra ,
(1971) 2 SCC 654, the Hon'ble Court was
pleased to observe that the process of
taking cognizance does not involve any
formal action, but it occurs as soon as the
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate
applies
his
mind
to
the
allegations and, thereafter, takes judicial
notice of the offence. As provided by
Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
a
Magistrate
may
take
cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon
receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police
report, or (c) upon information received
from a person other than a police officer or
even
upon his
own
information
or
suspicion that such an offence has been
committed. As has often been held, taking
cognizance does not involve any formal
action or indeed action of any kind but
occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his
mind to the suspected commission of an
offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place
at a point when a Magistrate first takes
judicial notice of an offence. This is the
position whether the Magistrate takes
cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or
on a police report, or upon information of a
person
other
than
a
police
officer.
Therefore,
when
a
Magistrate
takes
cognizance of an offence upon a police
report, prima facie he does so of the
offence or offences disclosed in such
report."

20. In the case of Ankit Vs. State of
U.P. And another passed in Application
U/S 482 No.19647 of 2009 decided on
15.10.2009, this Court was pleased to
observe in paragraph No.8 of the judgment
as under:-

"8. In the beginning, the name of
the court, case number, state vs. ....... under
section ......... P.S. ......... District ......... case
crime No. ........ /2009 also have been
printed and blanks have been filled up by
mentioning the case number, name of the
accused, section, P.S. District etc. by some
employee. Below afore cited printed matter,
the following sentence has been mentioned
in handwriting "अवभयुक्त अोंवकत की वगरफ्तारी
मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा Crl. Writ No.
19559/08 अोंवकत बनाम राज्य में पाररत आदेश
वदनाोंक 5.11.08 द्वारा आरोप पत्र होने तक स्थवगत
थी।"

Below aforesaid sentence, the
seal of the court containing name of Sri
Talevar
Singh,
the
then
Judicial
Magistrate-III, has been affixed and the
learned magistrate has put his short
signature (initial) over his name. The
manner in which the impugned order has
been prepared shows that the learned
magistrate did not at all apply his judicial
mind at the time of passing this order and
after the blanks were filled up by some
employee of the court, he has put his initial
on the seal of the court. This method of
passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If
for the shake of argument, it is assumed
that the blanks on the printed proforma
were filled up in the handwriting of learned
magistrate, even then the impugned order
would be illegal and invalid, because order
of taking cognizance of any other judicial
order cannot be passed by filling up blanks
on the printed proforma. Although as held
by this Court in the case of Megh Nath
Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr,
2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has
been made to the cases of Deputy Chief
Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan
Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686 (SC), UP
Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan
Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR
2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State
of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC):
2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is
not required to pass detailed reasoned
order at the time of taking cognizance on
the charge sheet, but it does not mean that
order of taking cognizance can be passed
by filling up the blanks on printed
proforma. At the time of passing any
12 All. Hamid Raza Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
575
judicial order including the order taking
cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court
is required to apply judicial mind and even
the order of taking cognizance cannot be
passed in mechanical manner. Therefore,
the impugned order is liable to be quashed
and the matter has to be sent back to the
Court below for passing fresh order on the
charge sheet after applying judicial mind."

21. In the case of Kavi Ahmad Vs.
State of U.P. and another passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010,
wherein order taking cognizance of offence by
the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(b) on
printed proforma without applying his judicial
mind towards the material collected by the
Investigating Officer has been held illegal.

22. In the case of Abdul Rasheed
and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
2010 (3) JIC 761 (All). The relevant
observations and findings recorded in the
said case are quoted below:-

"6. Whenever any police report
or complaint is filed before the Magistrate,
he has to apply his mind to the facts stated
in the report or complaint before taking
cognizance. If after applying his mind to
the facts of the case, the Magistrate comes
to the conclusion that there is sufficient
material to proceed with the matter, he may
take cognizance. In the present case, the
summoning order has been passed by
affixing a ready made seal of the
summoning order on a plain paper and the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had
merely entered the next date fixed in the
case in the blank portion of the ready made
order. Apparently the learned Magistrate
had not applied his mind to the facts of the
case before passing the order dated
20.12.2018, therefore, the impugned order
cannot be upheld.

7. Judicial orders cannot be
allowed to be passed in a mechanical
manner either by filling in blank on a
printed proforma or by affixing a ready
made seal etc. of the order on a plain
paper. Such tendency must be deprecated
and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. This
reflects not only lack of application of mind
to the facts of the case but is also against
the settled judicial norms. Therefore, this
practice must be stopped forthwith."

23. In view of the above, this Court
finds and observes that the conduct of the
judicial officers concerned in passing
orders on printed proforma by filling up the
blanks without application of judicial mind
is objectionable and deserves to be
deprecated. The summoning of an accused
in a criminal case is a serious matter and
the order must reflect that Magistrate had
applied his mind to the facts as well as law
applicable thereto, whereas the impugned
summoning
order
was
passed
in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind and without satisfying
himself as to which offence were prima
facie being made out against the appellant
on the basis of the allegations made by the
complainant. the impugned cognizance
order passed by the learned Magistrate is
against the settled judicial norms.

24. In light of the judgments referred
to above, it is explicitly clear that the
order dated 06.04.2019 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 2),
Raebareli, is cryptic and does not stand the
test of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex
Court.
Consequently,
the
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
06.04.2019 cannot be legally sustained, as
the Magistrate failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in him resulting in
miscarriage of justice.
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. Accordingly, the present criminal
appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned cognizance/summoning order
dated 06.04.2019 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge (Court No. 2), Raebareli in
Criminal Case No. 92 of 2019, State v.
Hamid Raza, Case Crime No. 212 of 2018
under Sections 323,504,506, I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, and 3(2)5 of
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Shivratganj,
District Amethi, is hereby quashed.

26. The matter is remitted back to
Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 2),
Raebareli, directing him to decide afresh
the issue for taking cognizance and
summoning
the
appellant
and
pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law,
keeping in view the observations made by
this Court as well as the direction contained
in the judgments referred to above within a
period of two months from the date of
production of a copy of this order.

27. The party shall file certified copy
or computer generated copy of such order
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad or certified copy
issued from the Registry of the High Court,
Allahabad.

28.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 576
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2022

Raja Babu Bablu ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vijay Kumar, Sikandar Zulqatnain Khan,
Zahir Ahmad Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section
304
-
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(va) -
Against rejection of Bail - Appellant
contends he is innocent, falsely implicated
due to enmity and village party bandi,
named in F.I.R - As per F.I.R lodged by
deceased's wife, she found her husband's
dead body with head and face injuries
near tube well and appellant allegedly
sleeping next to dead body, when she
inquired about incident he confessed to
killing
and
threatening
her
-
After
considering record, nature of evidence,
period of detention and absence of risk of
tampering with evidence, it appears no
one
witnessed
appellant
committing
crime, there is no motive, deceased and
appellant lived separately, case rests on
broken circumstantial links - Prosecution's
version that appellant killed deceased and
slept beside body all night is highly
improbable - No independent eyewitness
exists, suggesting false implication of
appellant on fabricated facts. (Para 6, 16)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah. :
1984 Cri. L.J. 178

2. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526,
(Para 2)

3. Takht Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2001 (10) SCC
463, (Para 2)