PRITINKER DIWAKER,J. - (1.) Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra and SriKrishna Kumar Singh for the appellants and Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan learned AGA for the State. None for the private respondent though served. The appeals are formally admitted for hearing. With the consent of parties, appeals are heard finally.
(2.) As these appeals arise out of common order dated 28.03.2019 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application Nos. 69 of 2019 and 76 of 2019, whereby the court below has rejected the said application as filed by the appellants for grant of bail, arising out of Crime No. 191/2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 302 of I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Shahbad, District Hardoi, they are being disposed of finally by this common order. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2000, FIR was lodged by one Randhi Singh alleging in it that about a month back on 28.08.2000 at about 11.00 p.m., when he and his mother were sleeping in the house, someone knocked the door and asked his mother about him and his brother Ram Lal. He states that he hide himself and in the torch light saw the appellants and other five accused persons. The accused persons started dragging her mother and after beating her by hand and fist, took her outside the house. He states that upon hearing cries of her mother, his brother Ram Lal, Mani Ram and some other villagers reached there carrying torch in their hands and all of them saw the entire incident. He further states that appellant Victoria is his relative and there is an old enmity between two families on account of Panchayat election. He further states that as threat was extended to entire family, the report could not be lodged immediately and on the second day, he had gone to the police station where instead of recording the report he was scolded by the police, the police obtained his thumb impression and had asked him to go away by saying that the report would be lodged. Based on this FIR, offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 504, 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act was registered against as many as eight accused persons.
(3.) Counsel for the appellants submits: (i) that there is inordinate delay of about one month in lodging the FIR and the said delay has not been explained by the prosecution. (ii) that deceased died because of drowning in the village pond and this fact is apparent from the inquest report. Further more, a day after the death of the deceased, the complainant himself had gone to the police station and lodged the report that his mother died because of drowning. It has been argued that during investigation, diary statement of various witnesses have been recorded and all of them have stated that the deceased died because of drowning. Even the postmortem report of of the deceased also makes it clear that she died because of drowning. (iii) that after investigation, police had closed the case but on a protest petition filed by the complainant, the appellants were summoned. Initially stay was granted by this Court on 15.05.2006 but while finally disposing of the revision, the same was dismissed on the ground that there are contradictory version in the statement of the witnesses and the case against the appellants cannot be quashed. (iv) that after the order passed by this Court on 19.02.2018, appellants have surrendered and now are in jail since 28.02.2019 and 09.02.2019 respectively. (v) that the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal and, therefore, the appellants be released on bail. (vi) that the provisions of the SC/ST Act do not attract against the appellants, as it is not the case of the prosecution that because she belongs to a particular caste, she was subjected to offence by the appellant. On the other hand, State counsel opposes.;