JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Atul Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. The pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 15.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No.146 of 2022 ( Mantu Verma Alias Vivek Verma Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.722/2021, under Section 302, 120 B I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated and lodged only with the intention to falsely implicate the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that an F.I.R. dated 05.09.2021 was lodged by the brother of the deceased regarding an incident dated 04.09.2021 in which he has stated that he has lodged a missing report of his brother and it was clearly stated that after search it was found that his brother was murdered by someone and his body was lying in the Village Naare Ka Purwa near hen farm and there is injury on his neck and a suspicion was caused on one Pankaj Kumar, who called the deceased by mobile phone.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the F.I.R. name of Pankaj Kumar was only mentioned and the name of the appellant was not found place in the F.I.R. nor there is any whisper in the F.I.R. regarding the role of the appellant. He further submits that the at the time of inquest also the name of the appellant was not in picture and at the time of inquest the complainant was witness of the inquest. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem and the post-mortem was conducted on 05.09.2021. As per post-mortem report the cause of death was shock due to ante-mortem injuries and three injuries were seen on the body of the deceased.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which a new story has been build up by the complainant and first time the name of the appellant came in picture that the wife of the deceased used to talk on mobile phone with the appellant and it was also stated that she also used to talk to several other persons, as she is a woman of modern time and since she used to talk to the appellant due to this reason there was always fight took place between the deceased and his wife.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that only on the statement of the complainant that the appellant used to talk with the wife of the deceased it cannot be said that the appellant is involved in the alleged crime.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the other witness, namely Sadhna Verma has also only stated this fact that the appellant used to talk with the wife of the deceased and due to their conspiracy he was killed. Another witness Durgesh also stated almost the same thing which was stated by Sadhna Verma in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

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 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. No one has seen the appellant ne