Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81509 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1311 of 2025 Appellant :- Sunil Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This bail application has been moved by the appellants - Sunil Yadav, Manoj Yadav and Hariom Yadav by way of present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 29.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur and to release the appellants on bail in case crime no.48 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452, 506 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khajani, District Gorakhpur. 2. Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this matter. It is also submitted that the co-accused Sushil Yadav alias Mantu, Vijay Sahani, Subhash Yadav, who were named in the F.I.R., and co-accused Durgesh Yadav, Pramod Yadav alias Moghe and Satyam Chaurasia, who were not named in the F.I.R., have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court by allowing their appeal vide order dated 25.7.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2612 of 2024. The case of the present appellants is not distinguishable to that of co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, therefore, they may also be released on bail. It is further submitted that the Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is also submitted that the appellants have no criminal history to their credit and they are languishing in jail since 8.1.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured belonged to scheduled caste community. It is also submitted that ample and sufficient evidence has been collected against the appellant during investigation as a result of which charge sheet has been submitted against him. Appellants cannot claim parity of the other accused persons. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 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 fact that co-accused, having similar role, have been granted bail, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside. 8. Let the appellants Sunil Yadav, Manoj Yadav and Hariom Yadav involved in case crime no.48 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452, 506 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khajani, District Gorakhpur, 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad