Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56039 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10591 of 2024 Appellant :- Virendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Birendra Singh Khokher Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Tyagi,G.A.,Prabhakar Dwivedi Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Virendra against the bail rejection order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Muzaffarnagar in case crime no. 25 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 307, 452, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jansath, District- Muzaffarnagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this is the second appeal moved on behalf of the accused appellant. It is further submitted that the first appeal was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on merits vide order dated 01.02.2024. 4. The only ground which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this second criminal appeal is the delayed trial and now there is no apprehension of tampering of evidence on the part of the appellant. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 28.03.2023. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and it has been submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 27.05.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 7. It was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the informant that witnesses of fact have been examined in this case and now only formal witnesses are to be examined. This is the case relating to Section 302 I.P.C. The case is of gruesome murder and no relaxation can be given to the opposite party no.2, the accused by allowing this appeal. There is no force in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 10. However, trial court is directed to make all the necessary endeavour for the expeditious disposal of this appeal without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. 11. Office is also directed to send a copy of the order passed today to the trial Court for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Shivangi Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad