Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24483 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10698 of 2024 Appellant :- Sonu Yadav Alias Rajdeep Yadav Alias Solu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kiran Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajnish Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Srivastava Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. By way of the present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act the appellant - Sonu Yadav Alias Rajdeep Yadav Alias Solu has approached this Court against the second bail rejection order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 180 of 2023 under Sections 201, 302 IPC, Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Didarganj, District Azamgarh. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The previous criminal appeal filed by the appellant praying for bail and setting aside the bail rejection order passed by the Court concerned has been decided as dismissed on merits by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.11.2023. 4. Deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, which was not recorded at the time of disposal of first criminal appeal, is the new and additional ground in this criminal appeal. 5. It is submitted that at the time of disposal of first criminal appeal by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.11.2023 the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were not recorded before the trial court but subsequently their statements have been recorded by the learned trial court and there are material contradictions in the said statements, which make the prosecution story highly suspicious. It is further submitted that substantive evidence of fact has already been produced by the prosecution before the trial court and since the said witnesses do not corroborate the prosecution version in material terms, now in the changed circumstances, the appellant is entitled for bail. The learned 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. 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. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed. Previous appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed on merits. 7. 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. 8. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. From a perusal of the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, which have been appended with the affidavit, prima facie there appears no serious material contradictions in the said statements. Moreover, while hearing this second criminal appeal this Court is not expected to analyze the evidence of fact recorded before the trial court meticulously. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role of the appellant and the fact that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant relate to the merits of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage , the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 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. It is made clear that the submissions / observation made in this order are only for deciding the bail application / appeal and the trial court shall not be influenced in any way with the said observations / submissions while deciding the trial. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 /safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad