# Raja Babu Bablu v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 576
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raja-babu-bablu-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49479
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

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:

## Text

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)
12 All. Raja Babu Bablu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
577
4. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., reported
in (2018) 3 SCC 22
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Case is taken up in the revise call.

2. As per the office report dated
21.07.2022 notice has already been served
upon the opposite party No.2 but till date
neither any counsel has appeared nor any
counter affidavit has been filed on its
behalf.

3. Today when the case is taken up,
there is no one present on behalf of
opposite party No.2 neither any counter
affidavit has been filed, as such, it appears
that opposite party No.2 is not interested in
contesting this case. Since the matter
pertains to bail and learned counsel for the
appellant presses urgency in the matter,
therefore, this Court has no other option but
to proceed for final arguments to decide the
present appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava,
learned A.G.A for the State and perused the
entire record.

5. This Criminal Appeal under
Section 14-A (ii) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act
has
been preferred
against
the
impugned order dated 27.09.2021 passed
by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Lucknow
in
Bail
Application
No.6825/2021 arising out of Case Crime
No.155/2018 under Section 304 I.P.C. and
Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station-Gosainganj,
District-Lucknow,
whereby the bail application of the
appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant is innocent and
has falsely been implicated in the present
case due to enmity and village party bandi.
The appellant was named in the F.I.R. The
F.I.R. was lodged by one Ram Kali, wife of
Rajaram Rawat (deceased), who is alleged
to be resident of Madaarpur Majra Rehmat
Nagar, Police Station Gosainganj, District
District-Lucknow. He further submits that
as per prosecution case it was informed that
a dead body was lying inside a tubewell
and there were injuries on head and face of
the deceased. It has been stated in the F.I.R.
that when the wife of the deceased received
information
about
his
husband,
she
immediately rushed to the spot and found
her husband lying dead and the appellant
was sleeping next to his dead body.
Thereafter, when she inquired about the
incident, the appellant stated that he has
killed her husband and threaten to kill her
too.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that on the information of
the informant, the appellant was arrested on
03.03.2018
and
in
his
confessional
statement, he stated the he killed the
husband of the informant. He further
submits as per the prosecution story, the
appellant after killing the deceased was
sleeping next to the dead body for whole
night, thus, the story of prosecution appears
to be highly improbable, how can a person
kill somebody and sleep next to the dead
body for whole night even though if it is
believed to be true, there is no independent
eye witness, who has seen the appellant
committing the murder of husband of the
informant, it clearly shows that the
appellant has been implicated in the present
case on the basis of false and fabricated
facts.
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the prosecution failed
to establish any motive for killing the
husband of the informant neither there is
any relation of the appellant with the
deceased. He further submits that when the
villagers arrived at the place of incident,
they did not recognize the appellant, thus, it
appears that appellant is not known to
anyone and he has been falsely implicated
by the police. The occurrence is based upon
circumstantial
evidence
and
during
investigation no positive evidence has been
collected against the appellant. He further
submits that it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and the chain of evidence is
totally broken. The police has also failed to
complete the chain of evidence to connect
the appellant in the present crime.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the deceased was living
separately and was done to death by some
unknown person. The appellant has been
falsely implicated on his own confessional
statement, which was taken by the police.
He further submits that the charge-sheet
was filed in a mechanical manner without
considering the evidence on record. The
recovery of weapon used was also made by
the police. There is no motive to kill the
deceased.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
while placing reliance upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharshtra : 1984 Cri. L.J. 178 has
argued
that
no
one
had
seen
the
commission
of
crime,
there
is
no
connecting link to indicate the involvement
of appellant in the commission of crime, it
is a case of circumstantial evidence and the
chain of evidence is totally broken, the
police has also failed to complete the chain
of evidence to connect the appellant in the
present crime. He further submits that the
appellant is not involved in the present
crime, thus he should be released on bail.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the appellant is in jail
since 03.03.2018 and has by now done a
substantial period of incarceration. In
support of his argument, he has placed
reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment
in the case of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the
judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the
appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of
the India Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that
so far the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about 2 years and four
months. The High Court declined to grant
bail pending disposal of the appeal before
it. We are of the view that the bail should
have been granted by the High Court,
especially having regard to the fact that the
appellant has already served a substantial
period
of
the
sentence.
In
the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as
may be imposed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10)
SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been
convicted under Section 302/149, Indian
12 All. Raja Babu Bablu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
579
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge
and have been sentenced to imprisonment
for life. Against the said conviction and
sentence their appeal to the High Court is
pending. Before the High Court application
for suspension of sentence and bail was
filed but the High Court rejected that
prayer
indicating
therein
that
the
applicants can renew their prayer for bail
after one year. After the expiry of one year
the second application was filed but the
same has been rejected by the impugned
order. It is submitted that the appellants
are already in jail for over 3 years and 3
months. There is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In
the aforesaid circumstances the applicants
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that ratio of law applicable
in above those cases is also applicable in
the case of the appellant, therefore, the
appellant may be enlarged on bail by this
Court sympathetically.

14.

Several
other
submissions
regarding legality and illegality of the
allegations made in the F.I.R. have also
been placed forth before the Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused, have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
appellant that he is ready to cooperate with
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. The appellant undertakes
that in case he is released on bail he will
not misuse the liberty of bail and will
cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed
out that appellant has no criminal history,
this fact has been mentioned at para-12 of
the affidavit filed in support of the bail
application. The appellant is in jail since
03.03.2018 and that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the courts, there is no
likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

15. Learned A.G.A. opposed the
prayer for bail of the appellant and submits
that it is only in the confessional statement
of the appellant, the name of the appellant
came into light but he does not dispute this
fact
that
the
appellant
has
already
undergone substantial period of detention
and the present prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence.

16. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the Bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence, considering the fact that no
one has seen the appellant committing the
alleged crime; there is no independent eye
witness who has seen the appellant
committing the alleged crime; there is no
motive of killing the deceased; the
deceased and the appellant were residing
separately; there appears force in the
argument of learned counsel for the
appellant that no one had seen the
commission
of
crime,
there
is
no
connecting link to indicate the involvement
of appellant in the commission of crime, it
is a case of circumstantial evidence and the
chain of evidence is totally broken, the
police has also failed to complete the chain
of evidence to connect the appellant in the
present crime; the appellant is not involved
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the present crime; there appears force in
the argument of learned Counsel for the
appellant that the appellant after killing the
deceased was sleeping next to the dead
body for whole night, thus, the story of
prosecution
appears
to
be
highly
improbable, how
can
a
person kill
somebody and sleep next to the dead body
for whole night even though if it is believed
to be true, there is no independent eye
witness, who has seen the appellant
committing the murder of husband of the
informant, it clearly shows that the
appellant has been implicated in the present
case on the basis of false and fabricated
facts and considering the larger mandate of
the Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda (supra), Kamal (supra), Takht
Singh (supra) and Dataram Singh vs.
State of U.P. and another, reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view
that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed. Consequently, the impugned
order dated 27.09.2021 passed by learned
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in
Bail Application No.6825/2021 arising out
of Case Crime No.155/2018 under Section
304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
Act, Police Station-Gosainganj, DistrictLucknow is hereby set aside and reversed.

18. Let the appellant, Raja Babu
Bablu be released on bail in Case Crime
No.155/2018 under Section 304 I.P.C. and
Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station-Gosainganj, District-Lucknow with
the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall furnish a
personal bond with two sureties each of
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.

(ii) The appellant shall appear
and strictly comply following terms of
bond executed under section 437 sub
section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-

(a) The appellant shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed under this Chapter.

(b) The appellant shall not
commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected, and

(c)
The
appellant
shall
not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate
with investigation /trial.

(iv) The appellant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(v) The appellant shall remain
present before the trial court on each
date fixed, either personally or through
his counsel. In case of his absence, the
trial court may proceed against him
under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal
Code.
12 All. Hausilal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses
the liberty of bail during trial, in order to
secure his presence, proclamation under
section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the
appellant fails to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then,
the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) The appellant shall remain
present, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
appellant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.

19. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the prayer for
bail and must not be construed to have any
reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

20. The trial court is also directed to
expedite the trial of the aforesaid case by
following the provisions of Section 309
Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in
case there is no other legal impediment.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 581
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 3935 of 2023

Hausilal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhishek Mishra, Subash Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Held-
Right to forgo promotion is a facet of an
individual's personal autonomy and privacy
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Absence of an express provision in service rules
does not preclude an employee from waiving
the benefit of promotion. Such a right, being
personal
and
fundamental
in
nature,
is
enforceable unless expressly restricted by law.
Rejection of the petitioner's request solely on
technical grounds is unsustainable. Promotion
cannot be imposed upon an unwilling employee
if it adversely affects their capacity to work
effectively.

Writ Petition Allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs U.O.I., (1970) 1
SCC 248

2. K.S. Puttaswamy Vs U.O.I., (2017) 10 SCC 1

3. National Legal Services Authority Vs U.O.I.,
(2014) 5 SCC 438

4. St. of Madras Vs VSG. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196

5. Pradeep D. Signapurkar Vs U.O.I. & anr.,
2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2608

Key Words:
Forgoing Promotion - Right to Privacy - Article
21 - Personal Autonomy - Service Rules -
Natural Rights - Reversion - Certiorari -
Mandamus

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Mishra,
learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.