Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26398 Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12742 of 2024 Appellant :- Sachin Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jetendra Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Sachin Kumar-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14- A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Firozabad, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 970 of 2023, under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad has been rejected. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has argued that previously the prayer for bail made before this Court through Criminal Appeal No. 3971 of 2024; titled Sachin Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another, was declined by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure No. 13), and at that stage, the material witnesses had not been examined. Learned counsel submits that the occurrence dated 30th November, 2023 resulting in injuries to Vivek, son of the complainant-Surendra Kumar was allegedly witnessed by prosecution witness namely Kumari Palak, and during trial, she stands examined as PW-2. While referring to the deposition of PW-2, learned counsel has argued that there are material discrepancies in her deposition, which would raise doubt about the case set up by the prosecution. According to him, since there is material change in circumstances, therefore, the applicant- accused has again approached this Court for grant of regular bail, as the conclusion of trial is likely to consume more time. Learned counsel submits that Special Court has wrongly refused the concession of bail to the applicant-appellant vide impugned order dated 06.11.2024, therefore, indulgence by this court is called for in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. He prays for bail. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2-complainant. The prayer is opposed by the learned State Counsel, who has argued that the involvement of the applicant is specifically mentioned by the complainant and other material witnesses and the occurrence had taken place in a broad day light. Learned State Counsel has argued that the material prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, Special Court has rightly refused the concession of regular bail to the applicant. He prays that the appeal be dismissed. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that according to prosecution, on 30th November, 2023, the motorcycle of the accused persons had hit bicycle of Km. Palak (PW-2), and at that stage, the victim (Vivek) came to intervene as the assailants were misbehaving with the girl. The accused persons started giving beatings to the victim and when his uncle PW-5 reached at the spot, he took him to his nearby shop, where the accused persons came there and again started beating Vivek, and as a result of the injuries, he died. The depositions of Palak and PW-5 have been placed on record alongwith the appeal through supplementary affidavit dated 4.1.2025 and a reading of the same would show that they have not been declared as a hostile witness. That apart, according to the prosecution, the occurrence was captured in a nearby CCTV camera, wherein the presence of the applicant-appellant has been shown. During the course of hearing, it is also fairly stated by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that in all there are 19 prosecution witnesses and out of those 7 have already been examined. Thus, it is clear that the trial is progressing speedily and is likely to conclude in near future. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Special Court, Firozabad has carefully examined the material on record while refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant and the impugned order does not call for any interference. Thus, keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of regular bail to the applicant-appellant. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 24.2.2025/Brijesh Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad