HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3033 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No. 2497 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 342 of 2024, under Sections- 191(2), 191(3), 109, 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Harchandpur, District- Raebareli. 3. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case. 4. It is further stated that the opposite party No. 2/informant/injured witness in the FIR, basis of pending criminal proceedings, stated that one co-accused namely Sanjay Yadav opened fire upon the informant and the informant in the FIR also stated that Shubhendra, Durgesh, Mahendra, Rajveer (applicant) and Shyam Lal tried to kill the informant. 5. It is further stated that the informant/injured witness, during investigation, improved the basic story of prosecution. As per his statement before the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O."), all the co- accused opened fire upon the informant. It is to be noted that only one gun has been recovered by the prosecution and this recovery is fake. 6. It is further stated that the informant has not sustained any gunshot injury and the injuries sustained by him, as per medical opinion, are simple in nature and could be caused in altercation between the parties and also by hard and blunt object. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ankit Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ajeet Kumar Rai, Jay Prakash Singh, Sanjay Singh Rajveer Lodhi .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) 7. It is further stated that co-accused co-accused namely Durgesh Yadav @ Anshuman, against whom similar allegations have been levelled by the informant, has already been enlarged on bail by the trial court vide order dated 13.11.2024 passed in First Bail Application No. 3053 of 2024. 8. It is further stated that according to the order dated 13.11.2024, co- accused namely Durgesh Yadav @ Anshuman was having no criminal history, and in the instant case, the criminal history of three cases of the appellant has been explained in paragraph 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant appeal. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail. 9. Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. and Sri Ajeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant particularly that co-accused namely Durgesh Yadav @ Anshuman, having similar role, has already been released on bail by the trial court. 10. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record. 11. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also that co-accused namely Durgesh Yadav @ Anshuman, having similar role, has already been released on bail by the trial court, as well as that the appellant is in jail since 31.07.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. 12. Order dated 04.09.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No. 2497 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 342 of 2024, under Sections- 191(2), 191(3), 109, 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Harchandpur, District- Raebareli is hereby set aside. 13. Let the appellant- Rajveer Lodhi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount 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. CRLA No. 3033 of 2025 2 (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.P.C. 14. 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 15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is 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. November 6, 2025 Arun/- CRLA No. 3033 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench