HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4487 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Shri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for appellant, Ms. Renu Devi Dohre, learned counsel for the informant and the 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 19.4.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Auraiya and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2024, u/s 147, 148, 302, 120B, 504 & 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) Da, 3(1) Dha, 3(2) (V), & 3(2) (Va), S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Sahar, District Auraiya. 3. Informant Arti Devi lodged an FIR against the four accused persons and one unknown person. It has been alleged in the first information report that Brijesh, husband of the informant, was hacked to death by appellant-Gajendra and Mohit, who at the time of occurrence were armed with axe. Other accused persons named in the FIR were alleged to be the conspirators in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that informant and other witnesses of this case have constantly improved their version. When statement of informant Arti Devi was recorded by I.O., she stated that her husband was caught by appellant-Gajendra and was assaulted by Mohit, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lalit Singh Tomar, Padmaker Pandey, Prakash Narayan, Raghuvansh Misra, Rakesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Renu Devi Dohre Gejendra Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) who was holding axe. Another witness Gaurav, who happens to be son of deceased, has stated that it was Gajendra alone who assaulted his father. One independent witness-Rani was examined and she has assigned the said role to appellant. Brother of deceased Sarvesh has also stated that deceased was murdered by the appellant. However, when statements of witnesses were recorded after the commencement of trial, all the witnesses have alleged that not only the present appellant Gajendra, but other accused persons were together involved in commission of the murder of informant's husband. Informant Arti Devi improved her statement and stated that both Gajendra and Mohit assaulted with axe. Similarly, when Sarvesh was examined, he stated that Gajendra was catching hold of deceased and Mohit was assaulting with axe. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that other accused persons were exonerated at the time of investigation and their names were dropped from the charge-sheet. However, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the informant after their testimony was recorded. Said application was moved with an intention that other accused should also be summoned by the trial court for facing trial. Said application was rejected. It is submitted that independent witnesses Rani has been discharged by the prosecution. It was argued that where the story of the prosecution remains continuously changing and the role of the appellant still has not been fixed by the prosecution witnesses, there is no reason to languish the appellant in jail for such a long time. Learned counsel has also submitted that if the other accused persons, who have been exonerated by the I.O. as well as the court for the same role, are not facing the trial, then no useful purpose will be served in keeping the appellant in jail. As trial has already commenced and the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial, he may be granted bail. It has been submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel appearing for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that injuries sustained by the deceased are serious in nature which resulted in his death. All the witnesses examined till now by the trial court were eye CRLA No. 4487 of 2024 2 witnesses of the said case. Any inconsistency or improvement in their statements will in no way cast any doubt on prosecution case. Their testimony does not suffer from any material inconsistencies. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to bail 7. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. Arguments advanced on behalf of appellant, if considered, only indicate that witnesses have made a bit of improvement in their testimony. However, none of the witnesses has stated that appellant was not present on the spot or he was not involved in the commission of the offence. 8. 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 it is not a fit case to grant bail. The impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant, therefore, does not suffer from infirmity and illegality. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. October 8, 2025 SK CRLA No. 4487 of 2024 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad