Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118384 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12483 of 2024 Appellant :- Brijesh Gaur Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar,Mohit Singh,Rajan Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. 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 - Brijesh Gaur with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 6.12.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sambhal at Chandausi in Bail Application No. 227 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 489 of 2024 under Sections 109, 118(1), 352, 351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chandausi, District- Sambhal. 3. As per prosecution case on 31.10.2024 at about 1.00 pm a collusion took place between the motor cycle of the accused persons Brijesh and Rahul with the scooty of the injured Tushar Rajaur, son of the informant, and an altercation took place between both the parties and one more person was called on phone by present applicant and all the three persons attacked upon the injured with knife and sharped edged weapon. He sustained serious injuries. Injured was medically examined and FIR was lodged in the evening of the same day. 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 accused appellant never knew that the injured belonged to SC/ST community. It is further submitted that only a role of catching hold has been assigned to the present appellant and it was co-accused who has been assigned the main role of assault. It is further submitted that although the injured in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. states before the I.O. that he was assaulted with some knife but as a matter of fact the doctor has found no stabbed wound on the body of the injured. It is also submitted that the medical report reveals that all the injuries were kept under observation and referred for surgeon and x-ray of the injured was performed in a private hospital but there is no supplementary report or x-ray/ CT scan report available on record. It is also submitted that the accused persons absolutely had no motive to commit the crime. He is having a criminal history of one case, which has been explained in the affidavit. 5. It is further submitted that there are several improvements in the prosecution story. The injured, informant and other eye-witnesses of this case have made contradictory statements which make the prosecution story as mentioned in the FIR doubtful and suspicious. It is further submitted that x-ray of the injured was performed in a private hospital but however, no such x-ray report or supplementary report is available on record. 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. Appellant is in jail since 7.11.2024. 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. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 6.12.2024. It is further submitted that the injured witness and informant of this case have corroborated the prosecution case in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The prosecution has come forward with a specific case that the injuries were caused with the aid of knife and sharp edged weapon, which is corroborated by the medical evidence but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that there is no x-ray or supplementary report of the injuries on record and also could not dispute the custody period of the present appellant. 7. 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. 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 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 10. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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. 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 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad