Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109889 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1177 of 2025 Appellant :- Gaurav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant - Gaurav to set aside the bail rejection order dated 19.12.2024 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act Bulandshahr has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 960 of 2024, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 351(2), 352 of BNS and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. According to the prosecution case the present appellant alongwith co-accused Raja after forming an unlawful assembly with some other co-accused persons on 10.10.2024 in day light caught the injured Raj Kamal, son of the informant, who belongs to SC/ST community and on exhortation of the other co-accused persons the present appellant and co-accused Raja opened fire upon the injured with intention to kill him and he sustained one firearm injury in his lower part of the abdomen. F.I.R. was lodged against named accused persons. 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 has not committed the present offence. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. It is also submitted that although in the injury report one gunshot injury has been shown which is in the form of exit and entry wound but there is nothing on record even in the statement of the injured as to who was the author of the said injury because role of firing has been assigned to two accused persons including the present appellant. It is further submitted that the injured was referred for x-ray by the doctor who medically examined him but in his statement the said doctor has stated that although the injury was caused by some firearm but it was simple in nature. Criminal history of the appellant has been explained sufficiently. It is further submitted that the trial court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 7.11.2024. It is submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. It is also submitted that the firearm injury has been inflicted on the vital part of the body of the injured, which might be dangerous and grievous for life. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad