Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:102770 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12111 of 2024 Appellant :- Ajai Goswami Alias Hridesh Goswami Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Rana,Anil Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Purushottam Mani Tripathi 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 - Ajai Goswami alias Hridesh Goswami with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.433 of 2024 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 109 (1) B.N.S., Section 3/25/27 Arms Act and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Medical, District Meerut. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution has come forward with a case that the informant Manveer Singh was called by the present appellant Ajai Goswami on 27.10.2024 at 10:30 P.M. on phone and when on his call the informant alongwith his friend Mayank Pal reached at the place of appellant, he alongwith his brother-in-law Neeraj started abusing them and made an assault upon the informant. Meanwhile, the sisters of the appellant Alka and Indu also came out of the house but the informant was beaten bitterly by the appellant Ajai and his brother in law Neeraj and when he tried to rescue, the appellant made a fire upon him with intention to kill, but incidentally the gunshot injury was inflicted upon the right hand of Alka, the sister of the appellant. The brother of the informant Guddu also reached there in the meanwhile and the informant sustained serious injuries. 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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged belatedly one day after the incident without any plausible explanation of delay. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant are simple in nature and the correct fact is that the informant alongwith his companions himself attacked upon the appellant and his family members and his sister Alka sustained injuries. There was no source of light at the time of the incident nor it is mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness as well of the alleged incident. The story of recovery of the pistol used in the incident is a false and bogus story of the police. It is also submitted that the alleged CCTV footage of the occurrence is not reliable electronic evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 29.10.2024. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut. 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 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 A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that fire was made upon the informant with intention of kill him but incidentally the firearm injury was inflicted upon the arm of appellant's own sister. The injuries caused to the informant and the sister of the present appellant corroborate the prosecution story and the entire occurrence has been recorded in the CCTV camera which gives force to the reliability of prosecution case. It is also submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the informant belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. His bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that no firearm injury has been sustained by the informant and substantial injuries sustained by him are not grievous or serious in nature and the criminal history of the appellant has been sufficiently explained by way of supplementary affidavit and the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses of this case, who were not named in the F.I.R. as eyewitnesses of the incident except the real brother of the informant and also keeping in view the the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and the custody period of the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 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 Ajai Goswami alias Hridesh Goswami involved in Case Crime No.433 of 2024 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 109 (1) B.N.S., Section 3/25/27 Arms Act and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Medical, District Meerut 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 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 :- 2.7.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad