HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11239 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the 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 - Arpit Kumar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.8.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Saharanpur in Bail Application No. 3290 of 2024 (Arpit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another) in Special Session Trial No. 1187 of 2024 in Case Crime No. 99 of 2024, under Section 302, 307, 120-B IPC and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station Rampur Maniharan, district Saharanpur. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant, the wife of late Kalam Singh, against Aryan and Nigam. Accused Aryan is the son of the other accused, Nigam. The informant, in her first information report, alleged that her husband was shot by accused Aryan, and the other accused, Nigam, also fired upon her, but she, however, escaped from the gunshot fired by accused Nigam. 4. Learned counsel submitted that when the statement of the other accused, Nigam, was recorded by the I.O., he stated that his son Aryan (main accused) also fired upon him on the alleged date after firing upon the husband of the informant, late Kamal Singh. The said accused Nigam was made a prosecution witness on the basis of the said statement. In the same statement, he has made the allegation that 10–12 days before this incident, he heard that his son, accused Aryan, was talking with the appellant and was planning to eliminate him because accused Nigam had sold some portion of his agricultural land, and Aryan was aggrieved by this act of Nigam. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that apart from the role of conspiracy imputed against him, no other evidence to substantiate his involvement in the present case has been found by the I.O. Hence, the appellant, who has been languishing in jail Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shyam Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Arpit Kumar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) since 06.08.2024, is entitled to bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the role of conspiracy is no less than that of the main accused persons, and the appellant, being a principal conspirator of the case, is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Arpit Kumar involved in the Special Session Trial No. 1187 of 2024 in Case Crime No. 99 of 2024, under Section 302, 307, 120-B IPC and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station Rampur Maniharan, district Saharanpur. 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 court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 13, 2025 Sumaira CRLA No. 11239 of 2024 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad