HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8502 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ankit Tiwari, learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA for State. 2. 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 with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 05.07.2025 passed by court of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Bijnor in Bail Application No. 3244 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2025, under Section 109(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) 5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Haldaur, District - Bijnor. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that allegation against four accused persons has been made in the FIR of assaulting the informant / injured with a sharp edged weapon. It has been alleged that appellant along with Nikul and two unknown persons were involved in the offence. FIR was lodged by injured, but he has not specified the role of any of the accused who caused the injury. Injuries sustained by injured are simple in nature. It was alleged in the FIR that injured as well as Sanju received injuries in the incident. However, Sanju has candidly stated that he did not receive any injury in the incident. 4. Learned AGA for State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that injured has stated before Investigating Officer that he was caught hold by appellant and Nikhil and both of them caused injury with sharp edged weapon. Injured was examined shortly after the incident. Hence statement of injured finds its corroboration with medical report. In such circumstances, appellant is not entitled to bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amit Rai, Gaurav Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rohit .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) the entire record and injury report. Injured has sustained a single injury and doctor has opined that injury was simple in nature. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 8. Let the appellant- Rohit involved in Case Crime No. 176 of 2015, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 324(2), 351(3), 352 of BNS and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor, 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 17, 2025 Mukesh CRLA No. 8502 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad