HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1608 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Vide order dated 27.05.2025, the notice has been issued to opposite party no. 2 and as per office report, the same has been served personally on opposite party no. 2. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is present nor any counter has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 1334 of 2025, arising out of FIR No. 135 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dariyabad, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that no case under Section 109 of BNS for attempt to murder is made out against Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amit Chaudhary, Poonam, Suresh Kumar Yadav, Utkarsh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ganesh Yadav .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) the appellant. As per medical examination report, injuries are found to be simple in nature. The applicant has been implicated by the informant merely on the basis of enmity. He further submits that the appellant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025 and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant is involved in committing the offence and the injured has received injuires. The learned trial court has appreciated the prosecution version in a rightful manner, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it is apparent that no case under Section 109 of BNS is made out against the appellant; injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature; the appellant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025 and the appellant has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), CRLA No. 1608 of 2025 2 Barabanki in Bail Application No. 1334 of 2025, arising out of FIR No. 135 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dariyabad, District Barabanki, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Ganesh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is CRLA No. 1608 of 2025 3 clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 9, 2025 kkv/ CRLA No. 1608 of 2025 4 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench