Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123965 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4723 of 2025 Appellant :- Shila Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Indu Tewari,Ravi Kant Shukla,Vikrant Neeraj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. As per office report dated 24.07.2025, notice has been personally served upon respondent no. 2, but no one has appeared on his behalf. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Shila Devi with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bulandshahr and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 317 of 2022, under Sections 201 IPC and 3(2)(VI) SC/ST Act, P.S. Pahasu, District Bulandshahr. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. 4. The F.I.R. of this case alleges that the main accused Babulal committed murder of Smt. Neksi Devi, mother of the informant, by inflicting several injuries upon her body with lathi and subsequently the present appellants hidden the dead body of the deceased with intention to disappear the evidence of murder. After investigation charge sheet was submitted but the present appellants were not chargesheeted, however, subsequently the matter was further investigated and charge sheet under Section 201 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act was submitted against the present appellant. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that 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 though the present appellant is named in the F.I.R. but in the F.I.R. itself no role of assault has been assigned to him. Appellant is a woman and only role of causing disappearance of evidence of murder has been assigned to him and the principal offender of this case as per the F.I.R. is Babulal, who in fact committed the murder of the deceased. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. Appellant is in jail since 02.05.2025 having no criminal history. 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. Co-accused Smt. Bhudevi and Kamlesh Devi have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.04.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 11812 of 2024 and appellant is seeking parity. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for grant of bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community. It is further submitted that cogent and sufficient evidence has been collected by the I.O. of this case to connect the present appellant with the commission of the alleged offence but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that role of committing murder of the deceased has not been assigned to the present appellant and only role of causing disappearance of the evidence of murder has been assigned to him. 7. 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. 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, role of the appellant, 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 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the appellant Shila Devi, involved in 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 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. 11. 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 :- 25.7.2025 Vibha Singh Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad