The decision emphasized the importance of considering the nature of evidence, period of detention, and absence of convincing material in bail applications, in line with the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

(Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Case is taken up in the revise call.

2. Today when the case is taken up, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, as such, it appears that opposite party No.2 is not interested in filing counter affidavit in 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.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the entire record.

4. 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 19.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No.1742 of 2020 relating to Case Crime No.464 of 2019 under Sections 302, 201 and 363 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Atrauli, District-Hardoi by which the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. 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. but no specific role has been assigned to the appellant for the commission of offence. The F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased and in the F.I.R. he has reported his son to be missing and he has further stated that the appellant asked his son to bring some items from the market for which he gave some money to him but after handing over the items to the appellant, he went missing. He further submits that as per prosecution case it was informed that a dead body was lying in the orchid situated in the village, when the family members of the deceased went there, they saw the dead body of their son but there is no independent eye witness to support the prosecution story. He further submits that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 363 I.P.C. against unknown person and in the F.I.R., the complainant clearly stated that he does not belong to SC/ST category, thus, it appears that the present prosecution is based on false and fabricated facts. He further submits that there was some old enmity in respect of local elections in between the appellant and the complainant and as per the postmortem report also there were nine injuries on the body of the deceased but no injuries were found on the neck and abdomen region.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on the information of the complainant/informant, the appellant was arrested on 22.11.2019 and the only evidence against the accused/appellant is the statements of the villagers wherein, they had stated that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, after that he went missing.

7. 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 falsely implicated on the statement of the villagers, 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.

8. 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 c