Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63366 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3448 of 2025 Appellant :- Bittu Raja Alias Amanpratap Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. The first criminal appeal was dismissed on merits by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.10.2021 in Cr. Appeal No. 496 of 2021 wherein the trial Court was directed to make all endevour to dispose of the case within a period of one and half years, but the trial is still pending, hence, this second appeal. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Bittu Raja Alias Amanpratap against the bail rejection order dated 7.4.2025 passed by the Additional District and Session/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lalitpur in case crime no. 87 of 2019, under Sections- 302, 387 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jakhalaun, District- Lalitpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 4. As per prosecution story as disclosed in the FIR is that on 11.8.2019 at about 10.30 pm when the Bhore Rajak, father of the informant and his uncle Mansoob Rajak were sitting on the chabutra of a house, the named accused persons Bittu Raja @ Aman Pratab Singh and Nakul came over there by motorcycle, hurled abuses by caste related remarks and then co-accused Nakul caught hold of his father and the present appellant opened a fire upon his father with intention to kill, which inflicted in the head of his father and then both the accused persons fled away. The informant himself saw the incident in the electricity light. The injured was taken to the hospital but could not survive. FIR was lodged and now the charge sheet in this matter has been submitted. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial in this case has started and three witnesses of fact have been examined by the prosecution. P.W.1, the informant, himself turned hostile during his cross examination and P.W.2 and P.W.3 are also the hostile witnesses, who do not support the prosecution version. It is further submitted that in this second appeal the only additional ground taken is that witnesses of fact have turned hostile. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. The trial Court 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. Appellant is in jail since 14.8.2019. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant halfheartedly opposed the bail application but the learned A.G.A. opposed vehemently and it has been submitted that the P.W.1, the informant-eye witnesses of the case has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief, which cannot be discarded at all even if he turned hostile subsequently. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 7.4.2025. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 7. 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. 8. Having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, also considering the fact that P.W.1, the informant, in his examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution case and he also even identified the present applicant, who was standing in the dock of the Court and made a specific statement that the applicant is the person who opened fire upon his father, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 10. However, trial court is directed to make all necessary endeavour to conclude the trial of the appellant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period of six months the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. Office is also directed to send a copy of the order passed today to the trial Court for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad