HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4446 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr Gyan Prakash Mishra and Mr Ahamad Farhan, learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.4.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr in the Bail Application No. 2484 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 237 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr. 3. The complainant, Kaushalpal Singh lodged an FIR stating that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. The accused, Gabruddin @ Gabru, Danish, Rashid and Jeeshan along with their family members, had longstanding enmity with him. It is alleged that on 12.04.2025 at about 4:00 p.m., over a dispute regarding a drain, the said accused, armed with axe, fawda, and lathis, formed an unlawful assembly in the locality of the complainant and also threatened the complainant and other members of his caste, saying: "Today we will kill you people of the Scheduled Caste community." Thereafter, they assaulted the complainant's elder brother, Rajkumar, with axe causing him to fall unconscious due to injuries. When the complainant's nephew, Sohit came to rescue him, the accused also committed marpeet with him and also used with caste- related abuses. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants-applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants-applicants that the alleged recovery from the pointing out of the appellants is false and fabricated planted by the police and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is further stated that four persons are named in the FIR but no specific role is assigned to anyone by the injured. It is further submitted that the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ahamad Farhan, Gyan Prakash Mishra, Haya Rizvi, Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amar Nath Tiwari, G.A., Pravesh Kumar Gabruddin Alias Gabru And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) injuries of injured are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the applicants are in jail since 14.4.2025 and have no criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said fact. 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, severity of punishment, 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. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and 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 set-aside. 9. Let the appellants - Gabruddin @ Gabru and Danish, involved in the 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 appellants will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellants will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. CRLA No. 4446 of 2025 2 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court. 11. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellants on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. September 12, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 4446 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad