Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85474 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1187 of 2025 Appellant :- Surendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Shri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The instant appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') has been preferred against the order dated 09.01.2025 whereby the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rampur has rejected the bail application of the appellant. 3. Prayer has been made to allow the appeal and release the appellant on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No.401 of 2024, under Sections 352, 115(2), 117(2), 351(3), 109, 118(1), 76 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur. 4. The contention is that as per the prosecution version contained in the F.I.R., the incident of committing physical assault took place on 01.11.2024 at the agricultural field of the informant where allegation was levelled against Rampal (father of the applicant), Surendra (appellant), Gajendra and Arvind. 5. Submission is that common role has been assigned against all the accused persons and by referring to the statement of injured informant Mahesh Babu, learned counsel submits that the said witness tried to explain the version contained in the F.I.R. and on perusal of the entire statement, it would reveal that identical role of not only committing physical assault but also molestation on some lady was assigned to the appellant and Gajendra. It is further urged that Gajendra has already been released on bail by order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Annexure No.6 to the affidavit. Infact, parity has been claimed by the applicant with the case of Gajendra and prayer for release of appellant on bail has been made. The appellant is in jail since 03.11.2024. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submit that different roles were assigned to all the accused persons, statement of informant as well as another injured witness namely Babu Ram has been read over before this Court and submission is that apart from committing physical assault, another role was assigned to the appellant for catching hold of the injured and then he was run over by the tractor. Injury report has been referred to, which reflects fracture in 8th rib. It is, therefore, contended that there being no parity; the offense being of serious nature and the injured person having suffered grievous injuries, no case for grant of bail has been made out. 7. On perusal of material at this stage, this Court finds that allegation of running over the injured by tractor was levelled, however, specific role was assigned to one Arvind. 8. As far as the appellant is concerned, role of catching hold of the injured was assigned then allegations of molestation etc. were levelled against the appellant and Gajendra both. Gajendra has already been granted bail, as aforesaid and having considered the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and the statements, at this stage, the case of the appellant is substantially at par with co-accused Gajendra. Although the other role assigned to the appellant i.e. of catching hold was not assigned to Gajendra the same, in itself, cannot be a ground to deny bail, inasmuch as, the role of causing injury by tractor was assigned to one Arvind. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set aside. 10. Let the appellant-Surendra involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i). The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of other co-accused involved in aforesaid case crime number. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad