Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116115 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 726 of 2025 Appellant :- Vimal Alias Bheema Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant - Vimal Alias Bheema to set aside the bail rejection order dated 8.1.2025 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 340 of 2024, under Sections 303(2), 103(1) of BNS and 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Narkhi, District Firozabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the opposite party no.2 despite service of notice. 3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that while Rajan Singh, son of the informant, who was the member of SC/ST community, was sleeping at night about 15 days ago, someone stole his mobile phone and after eight days when phone was retrieved from Ramu and Bheema they asked him to show the receipt of the phone and despite producing the receipt, they they did not return the mobile phone to him and due to this resentment, they committed his murder in the night of 28.9.2024. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started. 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 case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not complete in this matter and the prosecution has miserably failed even to show a prima facie case against him. The whole prosecution case depends upon confessional statement of the appellant himself which is said to be made under the police custody. Nothing has been recovered by the police on the pointing out of the appellant or from his possession. It is also submitted that the motive assigned in the matter is very weak. It is further submitted that even last seen together evidence is not available against the appellant. The appellant has no criminal history to his credit. 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. Appellant is in jail since 9.10.2024. 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. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The motive of the incident has been admitted and disclosed by the appellant himself. The offence is very grave and serious. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 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, the fact that except the confessional statement of the accused appellant, no eye witness of the alleged incident of murder of the deceased came forward, clean criminal record and detention 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 aforesaid appellant involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 :- 17.7.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad