HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2233 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Julfikar Ahmad, Advocate who appeared for the respondent no.2 and filed Vakalatnama which is taken on record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 795 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 70(1), 103(1), 238A, 66, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya. 3. While pressing the instant application for bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is not witness of last seen, which is required as the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. 4. He further stated that similarly situated co-accused namely Ashish Singh alias Lale Singh and Vijay Sahu have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order(s) dated 08.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1955 and 1526 of 2025, respectively. The copies of the bail orders placed before this Court are taken on record. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pranendra Mirdha, Divya Yadav, Pranjali Mirdha, Ram Sagar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Digvijay Singh @ Durvijay @ Baba .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) 5. Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Julfikar Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel that the co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court. 6. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement of the witnesses. 7. Upon due consideration of aforesaid that similarly situated co-accused namely Ashish Singh alias Lale Singh and Vijay Sahu have already been released on bail as also that there is no witness of last seen as also the delay in recording the statement of the witness by the Investigating Officer as also the period of incarceration and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed. 8. Order dated 14.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 795 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 70(1), 103(1), 238A, 66, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya is hereby quashed. 9. Let the appellant Digvijay Singh @ Durvijay @ Baba, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- 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 CRLA No. 2233 of 2025 2 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. 10. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. 11. 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. September 11, 2025 Mohit Singh/- CRLA No. 2233 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench