Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92388 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 245 of 2025 Appellant :- Abhay Dubey Alias Mathri Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shikhar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Abhay Dubey alias Mathri with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 6.12.2024 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.2 / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.280 of 2023 under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 4. As per prosecution story, on 30.7.2023 at about 7 - 8 P.M. when the informant was returning home from his work, on the way the accused persons namely, Rishabh Shukla, Shishu Shukla and Shyam Bihari Shukla and 3 to 4 unknown persons stopped him, demanded extortion money and looted Rs.5000/- from him. When the informant protested, he was abused by his caste and all the accused persons made deadly assault upon him with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon. F.I.R. was lodged on 31.7.2023 and after initiation of prosecution, charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that co-accused Rishabh Shukla, Shishu Shukla and Shyam Bihari Shukla were the main assailants and the appellant has played no role in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the injured in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has not assigned any role to the present appellant. It is also submitted that co-accused Vijay Shankar Dubey @ Baba Dubey and Bheem @ Sunil Pandey, having almost identical role, have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 6.5.2024 and 16.10.2024 while allowing the criminal appeal nos.2700 of 2024 and 5139 of 2024 filed by them respectively. The case of the present appellant is not distinguishable to that of co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the present appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act). It is further submitted that the Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 9.10.2023 having no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the informant/injured belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 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 concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 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 Abhay Dubey alias Mathri involved in case crime no.280 of 2023 under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar, 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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad