HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3799 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State. 2. As per officer report, notice has been served on respondent no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of said respondent to oppose the appeal. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.3.2025 passed in Bail Application No.456 of 2025 and to release the appellant on bail in S.T. No. 322 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 2 of 2025, under section 103(1), 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Police Station Ghazipur District Fatehpur . 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it has been alleged in the FIR that deceased Kishore was assaulted by accused Raju Paswan and one unknown person. The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has submitted that his name was not mentioned in the FIR and the accused Raju Paswan, who was named as an accused in the FIR, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.9.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.4623 of 2025. The appellant is languishing in jail since January 2025. It was further submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In such Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Om Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Raju Yadav .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused has been granted bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 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 and after considering the period of incarceration of appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. 9. Let the appellant- Raju Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case 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 court concerned CRLA No. 3799 of 2025 2 shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 9, 2025 SK CRLA No. 3799 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad