HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4839 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned AGA has informed the Court that notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on his behalf. 3. 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 - Nanha Yadav @ Rajkumar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.03.2025 passed by learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat, in Case Crime No.293 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238, 3(5) BNS & Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Shivli, District – Kanpur Dehat. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The entire prosecution story is based upon circumstantial evidence. No evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer to establish that deceased and appellant were seen together soon before the death of the deceased. Dead body of the deceased was recovered after six days of the incident in a canal. Said body was found 60 kilometers away from the home of the deceased. It was further submitted that one of the co-accused Kanhaiya Mishra was granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.3494 of 2025 (Kanhaiya Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and another) on 27.08.2025. 5. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the appeal. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dipak Srivastava, Prashant Kumar Singh, Premnendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Nanha Yadav @ Rajkumar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Nanha Yadav @ Rajkumar involved in Case Crime No.293 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238, 3(5) BNS & Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Shivli, District – Kanpur Dehat, 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 court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 10, 2025 R.S. Tiwari CRLA No. 4839 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad