HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7560 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent/informant even in the revised call. 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 a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.6.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.33 of 2024 (Patiram Vs. State of U.P.) and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2024 under Sections 302, 324 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) SC /ST Act, Police Station - Milak, District - Rampur. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that initially the first information report was lodged against the twenty-five person including the Home Guards of SDM and Tehsildar, but all the accused persons were exonerated. Appellant was made an accused in this case on statement of informant which was recorded by the Investigating Officer after two months. Informant alleged that his son Sumesh received gunshot injury after fire was opened by the present appellant. It was submitted that bare perusal of the FIR itself indicates that certain dispute between the parties regarding installation of Dr. Bhim Rao Amedkar's statute occurred and when personnel from Executive and police force appeared there to control law and order situation, a stampede occurred. Even the SDM was present on the occasion and he stated before the I.O. that situation was so worst Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Omar Zamin Patiram .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) that all the police personnel and persons from the Executive Head had to ran away from the spot. It was further submitted that the above circumstances in which the son of informant has died indicates that there was a stampede and gathering of a large number of people and, therefore, there was no occasion for anyone to identify the persons involved in firing upon the deceased. The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. It was submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that specific role has been assigned to the present appellant. 5. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record including the first information report and the case diary. It is apparent from the FIR that a worst situation of law and order was prevailing at the time the alleged incident occurred. Appellant has accompanied by a Home Guard of Tehsildar who had visited at the place of occurrence. 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, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has 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. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. 8. Let the appellant- Patiram involved in the aforesaid case 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. CRLA No. 7560 of 2024 2 (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 court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 14, 2025 SK CRLA No. 7560 of 2024 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad