Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42016 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 880 of 2025 Appellant :- Chandan Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed in the matter is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Chandan Tiwari with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 9.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bhadohi at Gyanpur in bail application no.24 of 2025 and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.124 of 2024 under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi. 3. Heard Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record. 4. As per prosecution story, the husband of the informant used to sell vegetables in front of Union Bank situated at Kaulapur. On 24.5.2024 at about 2:00 P.M. he left the house as usual to sell the vegetables but did not return in the night. Next morning his dead body was found near the railway line from an agricultural field. There were some litigations pending between the deceased and the accused persons. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started which is going on. 5. 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. He is not named in the F.I.R. nor he was last seen with the deceased. Prosecution story is false and concocted. F.I.R. of this case has been lodged belatedly after due consultation and an afterthought, to which no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution. There is no eyewitness of the alleged incident. There is no concrete evidence against the appellant to show his involvement in the present crime. There are contradictions in the statement of the informant under section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the F.I.R. version. There is no motive against the appellant neither he was involved in hatching the conspiracy. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the appellant or on his pointing out. It is also submitted that the co- accused Dayaram Gautam, who is named in the F.I.R. and from whose pointing out a lathi was recovered, has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.9.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32988 of 2024. It is further submitted that 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. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2024. Criminal history shown against the appellant has been explained. 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 A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to S.C./S.T. community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the court concerned has not considered the evidence on record in right perspective and the impugned order suffers from illegality and perversity, which warrants the interference of this Court and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the appellant Chandan Tiwari involved in Case Crime No.124 of 2024 under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, 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. 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 :- 20.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad