HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4252 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, Shri Prem Chand Saroj, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. 2. 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 16.4.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur, and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 8 of 2025 under Section 103(1), 61 (2), 238 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Khutahan, District-Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence against the appellant was found by the Investigating Officer except the alleged recovery of dead bodies at the instance of appellant. Learned counsel has submitted that the FIR against unknown person under Section 140(1) BNS was lodged by the informant Sarita Kumari. She stated therein that her parents who had gone to fields did not return after a considerable time. When she was interrogated by the Investigating Officer, she told that fields of appellant were adjacent to her fields and appellant had fixed naked electric wire to protect his fields. She further stated that she came to know from some person that her parents died as a result of electric shock after they came accidentally in contact with the electric fence. When dead bodies of her parents were recovered from a canal after 8 - 9 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mukesh Kumar Singh, Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sameer Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Prem Chand Saroj Kamlesh Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) days, postmortem was conducted. Postmortem report indicates that both of them were done to death by strangulation. It was further submitted that motive imputed by the informant that certain dispute regarding agricultural fields was in existence between the parents of informant and the appellant, was not of such nature which, could impel the appellant to commit the alleged offence. No evidence regarding any person having seen the appellant alongwith the deceased, was collected by the I.O. It was submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel appearing for the informant have strongly opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that dead bodies of the deceased were recovered from a canal at the instance of the appellant, but he has not explained any circumstance which can suggest that he was not involved in the offence charged against him. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 6. It apparent that dead bodies of deceased were recovered from a canal after 8 - 9 days of the incident and postmortem report indicates that both deceased were strangulated. However, no evidence of strong or immediate motive as well as any witness who had seen the deceased persons alongwith the appellant soon before their death, has been collected by the I.O. 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, 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- Kamlesh Singh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in CRLA No. 4252 of 2025 2 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 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. 4252 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad