HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10836 of 2024 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA as well as perused the entire record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Amit Sharma, to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act (P.A. Act), Ghazipur, in Bail Application No. 1799 of 2024 (Amit Sharma Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 93 of 2024, under Section 302 of I.P.C. & Section 3 (2) (V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Birno, District- Ghazipur, with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case crime. 3. As per prosecution story, the complainant stated that the deceased Amit Kumar left his home on 05.11.2022 around 6 PM and went to Manoj Jolly’s house with the applicant. He was supposed to return home with the applicant. However, on 06.11.2022 at around 6:30 AM, the complainant received a call from the deceased’s mobile informing them of the death. When the complainant reached the scene, the deceased’s body was already taken to the hospital. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident took place on Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Hemant Kumar, Narendra Kumar Yadav, Raj Nath Bhakta, Rikhaee Singh Yadav, Tej Bahadur Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Amit Sharma .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 05.11.2022 whereas the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation on 29.06.2024 but no plausible explanation regarding delay has been mentioned. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He further submits that the deceased died due to consuming of alcoholic beverage consisting of ethyl alcohol. As per viscera report, except Ethyl Alcohol, no other poison was found. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. No incriminating material has been shown from the possession of the appellant. There is no motive or intention for the appellant to commit the alleged incident. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant. The appellant is languishing in jail since 11.9.2024 having no previous criminal history. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is further submitted that co accused Manoj Rajbhar, having similar role had already been granted bail vide order dated 25.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11973 of 2024 and on this ground the appellant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said fact. 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Amit Sharma, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties CRLA No. 10836 of 2024 2 each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court. 11. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. September 24, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 10836 of 2024 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad