Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119805 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11957 of 2024 Appellant :- Rohit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tiwari With Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1336 of 2025 Appellant :- Anoop Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tiwari And Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12605 of 2024 Appellant :- Vijay Nishad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. The above three Criminal Appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants - Rohit, Anoop and Vijay Nishad with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection orders dated 14.11.2024, 9.1.2025 and 14.11.2024 respectively passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No.853 of 2024 under Sections 103 (2), 3 (5), 115 (2) B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur. 2. Since all the above three criminal appeals arise out of same crime number and relate to the same occurrence, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 in all the above three appeals and perused the entire record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this case. It is also submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged belatedly and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution regarding the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Although the appellants were named in the F.I.R. but no specific role has been assigned to them. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellants or on their pointing out. It is also submitted that the co-accused Mallu Rajbhar alias Monu Rajbhar and Mannilal Rajbhar, who were also named in the F.I.R. and having identical role, have been granted bail vide orders dated 2.7.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.3501 of 2025 and 2675 of 2025 respectively. The role of the present appellants is not distinguishable from the role of co- accused who have been enlarged on bail by this Court. It is also submitted that the appellants Rohit, Anoop and Vijay Nishad are languishing in jail since 19.10.2024, 14.10.2024 and 17.10.2024 respectively having no criminal history to their credit. 5. It is further submitted that the court concerned 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 also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the appeals but however could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the identically placed co-accused have been released on bail by this Court by allowing their appeals. 7. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 8. 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 appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. The impugned orders suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to be set-aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, all the above three appeals are allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are set-aside. 10. Let appellants Rohit, Anoop and Vijay Nishad involved in Case Crime No.853 of 2024 under Sections 103 (2), 3 (5), 115 (2) B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v) The appellants 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. 11. 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 :- 21.7.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad