Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47112 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2096 of 2025 Appellant :- Ankit Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Chandra,Surya Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chandra Kishore,Rajesh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by the State in Court today is taken on record. 2. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Learned AGA is present in the Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. . The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.355/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0243 of 2024, under Sections- 191(3), 103(2), 352, 3/5 of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Nasirabad, District - Raebareli, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. 5. Vide order dated 02.07.2025, this Court allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 1500 of 2025 filed by co-accused Naveen Singh and enlarged the co-accused on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.07.2025 reads as under: "The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 11.08.2024 under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352 and 3/5 of B.N.S., as well as Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 (amended in 2015), against seven named persons and five unnamed individuals, including the present appellant. The FIR alleges that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, visited the informant's residence on 11.08.2024 and asked his son to accompany them, claiming that Vishal Singh (Block Pramukh Pratinidhi) was calling him. When the son resisted, Arjun Yadav, one of the co-accused, reportedly used caste-related slurs and threatened that if he would not come, he would be shot. Consequently, the son tried to flee, but Arjun Yadav shot him, resulting in his death. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the FIR nor the informant's statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. mentions that the appellant shot his son. In the statement, the informant attributes the role of carrying the firearm to Arjun Yadav, who is also said to have used the caste-related slurs. During cross- examination, the informant acknowledged that the appellant was a friend of his son, having visited their home 10 to 20 times previously, and had been there a day before the incident, meaning thereby that appellant was not present on the day of the incident as alleged in the FIR and the statement given under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the bail of appellant primarily on the ground that the injuries found on the deceased's body were corroborating with the medical evidence, without considering who actually used the firearm and uttered the caste-related words towards the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has mis-appreciated itself in reading evidence on record. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the appellant has not been any role in the incident. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, it is found that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli in Bail Application no. 901 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli is set aside. Let appellant Naveen Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number with the following conditions " 6. Taking note of the aforesaid as also the fact of the present case, this Court finds that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the co-accused Naveen Singh as also the fact that the appellant has no criminal history and he has been languishing in jail since 13.08.2024 accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.355/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0243 of 2024, under Sections- 191(3), 103(2), 352, 3/5 of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Nasirabad, District - Raebareli is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. 7. Let appellant, Ankit be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 8. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench