HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7049 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 is present. 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 - Lavkush Prajapati with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 1.8.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Basti in Bail Application No. 1005 of 2025 (Lavkush Prajapati vs.State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha),, 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act,police station Paikoliya, district Basti. 4.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. against him was also lodged under Section 307 IPC, however, the said section was dropped during investigation, and the charge sheet has not been submitted under Section 307 IPC. The role of the appellant has been given to firing with a country- made gun. However, no firearm injury was sustained by any of the injured persons. It is further submitted that the appellant has been languishing in jail since 1.8.2025. Hence, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for opposite party no. 2 have vehemently Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anoop Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary Lavkush Prajapati .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant, along with three other accused persons, assaulted the informant and his family members. One of the injured, Ram Kishun, also sustained a fracture in the parietal bone. Hence, the appellant 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 Lavkush Prajapati involved in Case Crime No. 71 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha),, 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act,police station Paikoliya, district Basti 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. CRLA No. 7049 of 2025 2 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 15, 2025 Sumaira CRLA No. 7049 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad