Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37508 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11879 of 2024 Appellant :- Brij Bihari Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sarthak Singh,Vimlesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. 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 Brij Bihari Pandey against the bail rejection order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kaushambi in Bail Application No. 1498 of 2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 23.08.2024 at about 8:00 pm the husband of the informant was bitterly assaulted by the accused-persons Abhay Pandey, Nityanand Pandey, Brij Bihari Pandey and Ajayab Pandey with the aid of spade and country made pistol and accused persons also hurled abuses by caste related remarks. In the next morning when the family members of the informant went to the house of the accused persons to record their protest they were again insulted by caste related remarks and firing was made by all the four accused persons and the fire arm injury inflicted upon the Shivpal and Sanjay Pasi. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now the charge-sheet has been submitted. 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 has further submitted that all the accused persons in this case have been alleged similar role in the commission of crime, but co-accused Ajayab Pandey was granted bail by the trial court itself, whereas the bail application moved by the present accused-appellant was rejected by the same court. It is also submitted that only a general role of firing/assault has been assigned against the accused persons in this case. No specific role of inflicting gun shot injury to the injured has been assigned against the present accused-appellant. It was also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the informant side itself had made assault upon the accused persons and F.I.R. was lodged against the informant side by the accused-persons of this case. It is also submitted that no grievous or serious injury has been caused upon any of the injured of this case which might be dangerous for life. It is next submitted that the present appellant has criminal history of one case, which has been explained in paragraph no. 21 of the affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 24.08.2024. 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. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the appeal but however, could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the co-accused Ajayab Pandey having similar role in this matter was granted bail by the trial court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 03.10.2024. 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- Brij Bihari Pandey involved in Case Crime No. 272 of 2024, under Sections 109, 352 of B.N.S. r/w Section 3(2)(V) & 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi 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 :- 17.3.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad