HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2795 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2538 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 0083 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) of BNS and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jamo, District Amethi, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no evidence against the appellant and only on the basis of extra judicial confessional statement before the police, he has been implicated in the instant case. He next argued that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no last seen evidence. Nothing has been recovered on the pointing out of the appellant. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Vikas Kumar Yadav @ Suraj Lal, having similar role to that of present appellant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2040 of 2025. He added Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Deepak Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Anand, V.P. Singh Bhairo Maan Singh .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) that appellant is languishing in jail since 22.04.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. He next added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant was involved in committing the offence and, as such he he not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the basis of extra judicial confessional statement, the appellant is roped in the present case; this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no last seen evidence; nothing has been recovered on the pointing out of the appellant; co-accused, having similar role to that of present appellant, has already been enlarged on bail; the appellant is languishing in jail since 22.04.2025 having no criminal history to his credit and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned CRLA No. 2795 of 2025 2 order dated 19.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2538 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 0083 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) of BNS and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jamo, District Amethi, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Maan Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (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 shall 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.PC. 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 As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is CRLA No. 2795 of 2025 3 clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order. October 29, 2025 kkv/ CRLA No. 2795 of 2025 4 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench