Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27728 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10884 of 2024 Appellant :- Ashish Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Kumar Mishra,Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Yashwant Singh Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant- Ashish Tiwari with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kannauj, in Bail Application No. 1737 of 2024. 3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the present accused/appellant alongwith some other persons came to the house of the deceased on 15.06.2021 at 7:45 am and took him to allot some labour work on payment of Rs. 3,00/- per day. The deceased use to work there as laborer but when he demanded for his wages the present accused/appellant deliberately brought him into the contact of electric current and thereby caused his murder. The F.I.R. was lodged and after thorough investigation closer report was submitted by the Investigating Officer of this case which was protested by the informant who is the wife of the deceased by way of filing protest petition. The learned trial court treated the present petition as the complaint case and rejected the final report straightway summoning the present accused/appellant to face trial under section 302 IPC and section 3(2)v of SC/ST Act. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the deceased was working as labourer and while digging the soil in the house of the accused/appellant, unfortunately an electric wire was broken and the deceased came into the contact of electric current which was caused fatal to him. He was taken to the medical college where he was declared dead by the doctor. It is further submitted that there is no deliberate act of causing death of the deceased on the part of the present accused/appellant. The incident was the result of pure accident. It is also submitted that the other labourers who were working there have not supported the prosecution case in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer and from their statements it is crystal clear that it was an accidental death. It is further submitted that the accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 08.09.2024 and he is having no criminal history to his credit. 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. 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 and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application but however, could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the statements given by the eye witnesses of the case to the Investigating Officer support the appellant. In the postmortem report cause of death was found cardiac arrest due to anti mortem electric burn injuries. 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 trial Court 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 to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the appellant- Ashish Tiwari involved in Case Crime No. 379 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, & Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties 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 not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad