HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3736 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.01 of 2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the bail rejection order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Mathura in Bail Application No.2972 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.362 of 2024, under Section 108 BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State- respondent no.1 and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2. 3. According to the prosecution case, the informant's brother Aman Kumar Balmiki was working at Javed Habib's salon inside Omaxe City and was living on rent alongwith his maternal uncle son Tushar. It is further alleged that on 14.07.2024 at around 9 p.m., Tushar informed that Aman (the deceased) had hanged himself from the ceiling fan in his room and when the informant and family members of the deceased reached to the place of incident, they saw that the door was broken and Aman's body was hanging from the ceiling fan, thereafter, the family members took the dead body of the deceased to their village and without informing to the police, performed the last rites on the next date i.e. on 15.07.2024. It is further alleged that after cremation, the mobile of the deceased was checked then some WhatsApp chatting from the name of Radha Kund bearing Mobile No.9088611365 to the deceased mobile bearing number 8961616237 were found. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sudeep Devnath .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant. The incident is said to have taken place on 14.07.2024 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 23.07.2024 i.e. about 10 days delayed for which no explanation has been mentioned. Further submission is that the informant and his family members without panchayatnama as well as without postmortem have cremated the dead body of the deceased even without information to the police. Further submission is that as per statement of Tushar, who was also residing with the deceased, has not given any adverse statement against the appellant. Other witnesses have also not stated anything against the appellant. Further submission is that except general allegation, there is no other evidence available on record to show that essential ingredients of Section 108 BNS can be attracted, therefore, it cannot be said that present appellant had instigated, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit the suicide. Prima facie, no offence under Section 108 BNS is made out against the applicant. Further submission is that till today, only charge has been framed and no witness has been examined and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. Appellant is languishing in jail since 25.07.2024 having no previous criminal history. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant. 6. 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. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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 CRLA No. 3736 of 2025 2 the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 9. Let the appellant-Sudeep Devnath, involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. September 18, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 3736 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad