HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3041 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State. 2. As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant - Rahul Singh with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 05.02.2024, passed by the Court of Learned Special Judge S.C./S.T., Mau, District Mau, and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 0009/2021 registered under Section 302, 120-B IPC and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, at Police Station Chiraiyakot, Mau, District Mau. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that as per the prosecution story, Arvind, son of the informant, along with Aman had gone for an evening run at about 7:00 p.m., some miscreants fired upon them, resulting in the death of Arvind. It is alleged that at the time of the incident, Arvind was shouting the name of Rahul, who had earlier killed the former Pradhan of the village. However, no person had actually witnessed the occurrence. The appellant has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion. The FIR itself was lodged merely on conjecture. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer made attempts to record the statements of witnesses for about eight days but none came forward to disclose the actual culprits. The alleged incident took place on 12.01.2021, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh, Sujan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rahul Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) whereas the statement of the purported eyewitness Aman was recorded after about a month, on 13.02.2021. No plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution for such delay. If the witness was available immediately after the occurrence, the belated recording of his statement casts serious doubt on the authenticity and reliability of his version. The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the FIR was lodged promptly on the next day. Though the informant was not an eyewitness, he has categorically stated that the deceased was shouting the name of the appellant at the time of the incident. The name of the eyewitness Aman also finds mention in the FIR, which indicates that the FIR was not lodged merely on suspicion. The delay in recording the statement of Aman, is immaterial. His statement is sufficient to prima facie establish the involvement of the appellant in the offence. Hence, no ground for granting bail is made out. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, particularly the statement of Aman, who has claimed to be present at the spot and to have witnessed the incident, no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is rejected. October 29, 2025 Ujjawal CRLA No. 3041 of 2024 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad