Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 744 of 2025 Appellant :- Arvind Soni Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Heard Shri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 despite served personally. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 555/2024 (Arvind Soni vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 0634 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 & 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Gurubuxganj, District- Raebareli. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas he is innocent. He further submits that the First Information Report has been lodged against four persons and the knife has been shown in the hand of the appellant, whereas the postmortem report of the deceased-Ramdas Pasi does not indicate any injury of knife. He further submits that the injured Dheerendra Kumar Yadav has also not suffered any injury from knife, therefore, his presence on the site also is concocted. He further submits that the knife has also not been recovered. He also submits that there is no criminal history of the appellant prior to this case. However, after lodging of the F.I.R. in the present matter, Gangster Act has been imposed. He further submits that earlier an F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the applicant against the deceased and others in regard to the some property dispute, on account of which, this false F.I.R. has been lodged. He further submits that in the evidence of P.W. 1-Rohit Kumar Paswan also, the knife has been shown in the hand of the applicant, whereas there is no injury of knife. He further submits that the casteist remarks as alleged in the F.I.R. cannot be said to be in full public view but without considering the above, the court below has passed the order and rejected the bail application of the appellant, which is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2023 and in case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and cooperate the trial court in expeditious disposal of trial. He further submits that the co accused namely Avadhesh Kumar Yadav and Narendra Soni have already been granted bail in Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2024 and in Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2024 respectively. The bail orders of both the accused have been placed on record as Annexure Nos. 8 and 9. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perusal the records. The F.I.R. has been lodged indicating therein that the appellant had assailed with knife, whereas no injury of knife has been found in the postmortem of the deceased or in the medical examination of the injured. The knife has also not been recovered. There is no criminal history of the appellant and the co accused, having lathi and dada in their hands at the time of incident, the injuries of which have been found, have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this Court. The Gangster Act has been imposed subsequent to the instant case, may be on account of this F.I.R., but without considering the same, the court below passed the impugned order and rejected the bail application. So far as the casteist remarks are concerned, it could not be shown at this stage that it was in full public view even if it was so. Thus, a case for bail is made out in favour of the appellant and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Raebareli is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Arvind Soni involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and undertaking as stated above and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (v) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Raj Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench