HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1478 of 2024 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr in Bail Application No. 627 of 2024 (Monu @ Manoj versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 1191 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 452, 506, 386 and 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr. 3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that on 28.12.2017 at about 18.00 p.m. the co-accused Shashi along with other co-accused Kalu, Pavan, Ankush and the present appellant have come at the house of the informant and asked to open the door and when he opened the door the co- accused Shashi has caused injury by the butt country made pistol on the head of informant, namely, Vinod and on the motivation of other co-accused Kalu, Pavan and Ankush and appellant have caused fire upon the brother of the informant, namely, Laxman and who has sustained fire arm injury and they have caused threat that if Rs. 2 lakhs has not been given to them they will be murdered. It is also alleged that the on calling the police by dialing 100 the police failed to reach at the spot and thereafter the injured Laxman was brought to hospital. It is also alleged that his mother Smt. Roopwati had Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anand Pati Tiwari, Dheeraj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Kandarp Srivastava, Saurabh Srivastava Monu Alias Manoj .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) made a complaint to the S.S.P. Bulandshahr and Police Commissioner Meerut against them in the morning on 28.12.2017. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution story is false and concocted. 5. Further submission is that the appellant is in jail since 13.01.2018 and the trial has yet not been concluded. 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposed the bail and submitted that this is the fourth bail application moved on behalf of the appellant. There is no fresh grounds taken by the appellant. The submission raised by the appellant has already been considered by the court while rejecting the first, second and third bail applications. It is further submitted that the plea of the period of long incarceration, the Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that the fourth bail application can only be entertained if there are fresh grounds or events which have been emerged after disposal of the first bail application. The Apex Court has also turned down the plea of the period of long incarceration in jail. 7. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that this is the fourth bail application on behalf of the appellant. 8. The first three bail applications of the appellant was rejected on merits by this court, after taking into consideration the entire material on record and the present application does not disclose any fresh ground which has emerged subsequent to the rejection of the earlier bail applications. The contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant pertain to appreciation of evidence, credibility of the dying declaration and reliability of witnesses, which are all matters to be tested during trial and cannot be gone into at this stage. 9. The argument advanced regarding the long incarceration of the appellant in jail also does not constitute a fresh ground for the purpose of entertaining the fourth bail application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has consistently held that successive bail applications can be CRLA No. 1478 of 2024 2 entertained only when there is a change in circumstances or emergence of new grounds. Mere passage of time or long detention in jail without conclusion of trial, in serious offences of the present nature, cannot by itself be considered as a change in circumstance warranting grant of bail. 10. The allegations against the appellant and co-accused are grave and serious in nature. 11. In view of the gravity of the offence, absence of any fresh ground, and the settled position of law governing successive bail applications, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. However, trial judge is expected to conclude the trial expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party in accordance with law. September 18, 2025 SY CRLA No. 1478 of 2024 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad