Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1207 of 2025 Appellant :- Puneet Rathaur And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record. Heard Shri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State. It is evident from the record that the notice has already been served on the respondent nos. 2 to 4. However, none has put in appearance and today also none is present on their behalf. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 114/2025 (Puneet Rathaur and others vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 444 of 2024, under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 331(6) B.N.S.S. and Section 3(1) da, dha and Section 3(2) va of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Hargaon, District- Sitapur. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the case, whereas they are innocent. He further submits that only general role has been assigned to all the accused(s) and no specific role has been assigned to the appellants. He next submits that the appellant no. 1 has also suffered certain injuries in the alleged incident, on account of which, he was also examined by the CHC but his medical examination report has not been considered by the Investigating Officer while filing the chargesheet. He further submits that there is no criminal history of the appellants except the present case. He further submits that since the chargesheet has already been filed, therefore, the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise and the allegations of sections under S.C./S.T. Act does not make out from bare perusal of the F.I.R. 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 appellants, which is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the appellants are languishing in jail since 24.03.2025 and in case, the appellants are released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and assist the trial court in expeditious disposal of trial. He further submits that the co accused namely Satish has already been granted bail in Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 2025. The bail order of the accused has been placed on record. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellants. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is apparent that the F.I.R. has been lodged with general allegations against all the accused(s) and no specific role has been assigned to the appellants and the appellant no. 1 has also suffered certain injuries in the alleged incident and they have no criminal history but without considering the same, the court below passed the impugned order and rejected the bail application and 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 coupled with the fact that the co accused having similar role has been granted bail by means of the order dated 03.03.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 2025 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a case for bail is made out in favour of the appellants. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur is hereby set aside. Let the appellants- Puneet Rathaur and Ashok Rathaur involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on their 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 appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law. (iv) The appellants 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 appellants 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 them in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.5.2025/Raj Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench