[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Roli @ Sarita Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:70073
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1864 of 2026
Roli @ Sarita Vishwakarma
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Anil Kumar Yadav, Prem Prakash Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Dharmendra Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
(Order on Criminal Appeal)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellants under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Fatehpur, in Bail Application No. 1293 of 2025 (Roli alias Sarita Vishwakarma Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 352, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Ghazipur, District Fatehpur.
3. As per prosecution case, the victim Beenu, a physically disabled person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, was called on 07.04.2025 in the night to the house of accused Satendra Vishwakarma by his daughter Roli. It is alleged that Satendra, his wife Bachol Devi, daughter Roli, son Ajay, daughter-in-law Sunita, Pankaj (brother-in-law of Ajay), along with two unknown persons, assaulted the victim with sticks and an iron rod, hurled caste-based derogatory abuses, and even pulled out his fingernails. The victim sustained multiple grievous injuries, collapsed on the spot, and was taken to CHC Ghazipur hospital where he was declared dead. Post-mortem examination revealed as many as 21 injuries and opined cause of death as coma due to head injury.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and an unmarried lady aged about 25 years. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that she had called the deceased to her house in the early morning, after which all the accused persons committed his murder. It is further submitted that there is no CDR to connect the appellant with the alleged offence and no specific role has been assigned to her. Hence, she is entitled to bail.
5. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that the deceased was called in the early morning on the date of the incident, and as per the statement of Opposite Party No. 2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., his son was called by the appellant on 07.04.2025 at about 3:00 a.m. The contents of the F.I.R. and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are consistent with each other. The F.I.R. was lodged promptly on the same day, i.e., 07.04.2025.
6. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have further submitted that the offence is of a very heinous nature. The deceased, being a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was subjected to humiliation and thereafter brutally murdered. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased had 21 ante-mortem injuries, which are as follows: "Anti Mortem Injuries
1. Abraded contusion of size 10 cm X 5 cm present on right side of face near upper eyebrow and forehead up to face.
2. Contusion of size 8 cm x 6cm present on both foot on soul aspect.
3. L.W of size 2 cm X 1 cm present in between base of thumb and index finger.
4. Contusion of size 22cm X 6cm present on right foot involving ankle joint.
5. Contusion of size 4 cm X 3 cm present on right hand palm.
6. Contusion of size 3 cm X 2 cm present on both lip.
7. Two teeth mark present on lower lip and swelling present.
8. Contusion of size 28 cm X 17 cm present on left shoulder and up to arm.
9. Contusion of size 19 cm X 13 cm present on right shoulder. 10. Contusion of size 10 cm x 11 cm present on left side neck region. 11. Contusion of size 13 cm x ... cm present on back side of neck. 12. L.W of size 2 cm x 1 cm present on in between left thumb and left index finger. 13. L.W of size 1 cm x 1 cm present on base of right index finger. 14. L.W of size 2 cm X 1 cm present on left ring finger.
15. Abraded contusion of size 3 cm x 4 cm present on left elbow joint.
16. Contusion of size 6 cm x 6cm present on left hand on dorsal aspect.
17. Multiple contusion of size 62 cm X23 cm present on left side abdomen, pelvic, thigh region on lateral aspect.
18. Multiple abraded contusion present on whole back region and both hip.
19. Contusion of size 5cm X 6 cm present on tempo occipital region with underlying bone fracture present.
20. Left greater toe nail detached but some part of skin attached with nail.
21. Left ring finger nail detached but some part of skin attached with nail."
7. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has further submitted that the appellant has also filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she has admitted that she had a love affair with the deceased. She stated, "We used to talk on the mobile phone. On 06.04.2025, I was talking to Binu during the day when my family members came to know about it. My father became very angry. He, along with my mother, brother Ajay Kumar, sister-in-law Sunita Devi, and my sister-in-law's brother, Pankaj, who had come to our house, tried to persuade me and hatched a conspiracy to kill Binu, to which I agreed. As per the conspiracy, I called Binu on 07.04.2025 at around 3:30 a.m. When Binu arrived, we all beat him with sticks, kicks, and fists, and my brother Ajay pulled out his nails with an iron rod. We then beat Binu and threw him out of the house."
8. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from the entrance of the complainant's house. The bail application of Bachol Devi and Sunita has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 4733 of 2025 (Bachol Devi and another vs. State of U.P. and another), 2025: AHC:163522. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged. The role of the appellant is specific; she was having a love affair with the deceased and called him at about 3:00 a.m. on the date of the incident, i.e., 07.04.2025, after which he was brutally murdered. Her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is also in consonance with the averments made in the F.I.R.
9. The criminal appeal has no merits.
10. The criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
(Order on Criminal Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 01 of 2026)
With the observations made in the criminal appeal, the bail application is dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
April 2, 2026
K.K. Maurya
