HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4750 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.4.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ballia in the Bail Application No. 811 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 105 BNS and Section 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gadwar, District Ballia. 3. As per the case of prosecution, on 09.03.2025 at about 10:30 p.m., the informant's son Anuj Kumar along with his companions were returning on a motorcycle from village Damodarpur after attending a feast and near village Kotwa, the accused Ashutosh Upadhyaya, Ashutosh Kumar Upadhyay along with six or seven unknown associates, stopped their motorcycle and abused them using caste-indicative derogatory words and when objected, the accused persons assaulted son of informant with fists and kicks. It is further alleged that co accused Ashutosh Upadhyay snatched ₹850 from Anuj's pocket and struck his head forcefully with an iron rod, causing him to fall unconscious on the ground with injuries. The accused then fled, leaving him in that condition. On hearing cries, Anuj's companions came forward but they too were beaten, in which Shailesh Kumar sustained serious head injuries. While leaving, the accused threatened them using caste- abusive words and demanded ₹10,000 per month as "goonda tax," threatening to kill them otherwise. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Hari Om Gupta, Virendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Bharti, G.A., Kamlesh Prasad, Manoj Kumar Ashutosh Kumar Upadhyay .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) falsely implicated, that the case is cross-motivated, and that there are material contradictions in the prosecution version. It is further urged that the appellant is employed as a computer operator in the B.D.O. Office, Garwar, has deep roots in society, and is not likely to abscond. The appellant has remained in custody since 11.4.2025 and has no criminal history. It is further submitted that no role of causing injury has been assigned to applicant and as per FIR role of causing injuries has been assigned to one Abhishek Upadhyay. It is further submitted that in the present case both side have received injuries and all the injuries were found simple in nature except one injury received by injured, who was admitted and treated about one month and was released from hospital in fit condition and after one week from release from hospital, he died. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injury received on applicant's side. It is further submitted that during investigation, the statement of injured was not recorded. It is also argued that the trial of the case is not likely to conclude in the near future. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the appeal but does not dispute the aforesaid 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 appellant - Ashutosh Kumar Upadhyay, 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 appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. CRLA No. 4750 of 2025 2 (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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. 4750 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad