HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3453 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 and rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of the opposite party No.2 is taken on record. 2. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.1695 of 2025), arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2025, under Sections - 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya. 3. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, whose criminal history of four cases has been explained in para 20 of the affidavit is in jail since 20.04.2025 and infact is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. 4. He further stated that in the F.I.R. which was lodged with the delay of about 17 hours the name of the appellant not indicated by the informant and the F.I.R. is completely false and concocted. It is also stated that the statement of the injured witnesses if taken on its face value, then it is apparent that on account of some dispute in the D.J. performance, which fact has also been indicated in the F.I.R., some altercation took place between the parties and in the said altercation the injured sustained injuries and all the injuries as per medical opinion could be caused by Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Onkar Nath Nishad, Deepak Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Beeru Nishad .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) hard and blunt object and from these facts it can be deduced that the incident occurred without predetermination of mind and on spur of moment and as such the offence indicated under Sections 110 and 115 (2) of BNS would be attracted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has duly explained his criminal history in para-17 of the affidavit filed in support of appeal of memo. The appellant is held in jail custody since 11.08.2025. The co-accused Khaddu Alias Deva Nishad, Mohd. Sajid and Rahul Nishad have already been granted bail in their respective Criminal Appeal Nos.2018 of 2025, 2015 of 2025 and 3444 of 2025 by the coordinate benches of this Court in their respective criminal appeals preferred by him against bail rejection order passed by learned Special Judge. The case of the appellant is at par with that co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity also. 6. It is further stated that the appellant in fact has been implicated with oblique motive as the appellant is brother of the other co-accused. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel. 8. 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. 9. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances from which prima facie it appears that incident occurred without premeditation of and on spur of moment and also the injury reports 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. 10. Order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.1695 of 2025), CRLA No. 3453 of 2025 2 arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2025, under Sections - 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya is hereby set aside. 11. Let the appellant - Beeru Nishad 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. 12. 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. CRLA No. 3453 of 2025 3 13. 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. December 3, 2025 KR CRLA No. 3453 of 2025 4 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench