HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2713 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Order on C.M Application No. 01 of 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2. 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 08.07.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Raebareli in Bail Application No. 718/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.61/2025, under Sections 103(1), 238 B.N.S Police Station Salon, District Raebareli, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the appellant was not named in the F.I.R. After five days of the alleged incident, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of some persons, wherein the name of the appellant has come into light. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no eye witness to the said incident. He further submits that the name of appellant/applicant came in the light in the statement of co-accused persons. 5. He next submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of evidence is totally broken, the police has also failed to complete the chain of evidence to connect the appellant in the present crime. He further submits that there is not any direct witness of the alleged crime, thus it cannot be said that the appellant is involved in the present case. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : S.K. Tripathi, Binod Kumar Tiwary Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Dil Bag Gautam .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 25.02.2025, and he has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also 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. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Raebareli in Bail Application No. 718/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.61/2025, under Sections 103(1), 238 B.N.S Police Station Salon, District Raebareli deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant was involved in the commission of the crime, therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, they have been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant. 9. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstance of the case and on the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that there is no eye witness of the said incident; the appellant/applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; during the course of investigation, his name came into light on the basis of confessional statement, as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 25.02.2025 without having any criminal history, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Raebareli in Bail Application No. 718/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.61/2025, under Sections 103(1), 238 B.N.S Police Station Salon, District Raebareli is hereby set aside. 11. Let the appellant- Dil Bag Gautam be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following CRLA No. 2713 of 2025 2 additional conditions- (1) 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 them 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 351 B.N.S.S. 12. 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 October 28, 2025 DiVYa CRLA No. 2713 of 2025 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench