HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 63 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Case is called out in revised list. None appears on behalf of opposite party No.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. 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 - Salman Ali Alias Golu Mujawar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 16.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.14, Prayagraj in Case Crime No.104 of 2024, under Sections 307, 504, 120B IPC & Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Cantt, District - Prayagraj. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he was compelled to file his second bail application because his earlier bail application was rejected by considering the CCTV Footage. It was argued by the State before Court that the presence of appellant was found in CCTV footage but CCTV footage details, mentioned in case diary, indicates that appellant was not present on the spot. It has been mentioned in the case diary that CCTV footage shows the presence of Riyasat Ali and Shahbaz Ali. Therefore, appellant is entitled to bail as his presence was not found in CCTV footage. 5. Learned AGA for State has opposed the bail and submitted that presence of appellant was not found in CCTV footage, however, the appellant was found talking with other accused person Shahbaz somewhere else. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gaurav Tiwari, Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra, Zia Uddin Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Pathak, G.A., Rishabh Singh Salman Ali Alias Golu Mujawar .....Appellant(s) The State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary (Home) U.P. At Lucknow And Another .....Respondent(s) 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 7. Considering the fact that appellant at the time of the incident was not present on the spot which is very much specific from the CCTV footage 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 Salman Ali Alias Golu Mujawar involved in Case Crime No.104 of 2024, under Sections 307, 504, 120B IPC & Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Cantt, District - Prayagraj, 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 10, 2025 R.S. Tiwari CRLA No. 63 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad