HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2371 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Cr.Misc. Application No.2 of 2025) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vashu Deo Mishra, and learned A.G.A. for the State. This Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, challenges the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya, which rejected the appellant's bail application in Case Crime No. 105 of 2025 (U/S 103(1), 109(1), 3(5) B.N.S., 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, and 27/30 Arms Act). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Kapil Singh, has been falsely implicated in the present case, asserting that the entire prosecution story is unbelievable, fabricated, and concocted. He further submits that the investigating officer's record shows major contradictions between the FIR and the subsequent statements of the complainant and the injured, and that there is no eye-witness named in the charge sheet. Furthermore, he argued that the alleged recovery of the Double Barrel Breech Loading (DBBL) licensed gun is disputed, as the weapon does not belong to the appellant but to the co-accused, Jai Prakash Singh alias Raman. He further submits that the learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the absence of any motive for the appellant to fire upon the deceased or the injured. It was specifically noted that the appellant is in judicial custody since 09.03.2025. While admitting that the appellant has a criminal history Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Vashu Deo Mishra, Aadarsh Mishra, S.K. Mishra Nagraha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Kapil Singh .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) of three other cases (Crime Nos. 291/2021, 14/2025, and 419/2023, P.S. Raunahi), he stressed that the appellant has already been enlarged on bail in all those matters. Concluding his submissions, the counsel affirmed that the appellant is innocent, has a permanent residence, and is ready to furnish reliable sureties, undertaking not to abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses or evidence. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal, highlighting the gravity of the offence resulting in the death of a minor and injury to another person, confirmed by the Post Mortem Report. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly noting the submissions regarding the absence of any direct eye- witness in the charge sheet and the contradictions between the oral and medical evidence presented in the affidavit, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the appellant's continued custody since 09.03.2025 and his undertaking, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant, Kapil Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a Personal Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following additional conditions: (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution and ensure his presence before the Trial Court on each and every date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The appellant shall not commit any offence while on bail. CRLA No. 2371 of 2025 2 (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for the recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for recording of evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of any of the above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as an abuse of the liberty of bail and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. It is further clarified that any 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 such observation(s) during the trial. October 13, 2025 Haseen U. CRLA No. 2371 of 2025 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench