HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4978 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.01 of 2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the bail rejection order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Prayagraj in Bail Application No.76 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.20 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Daraganj, District Prayagraj. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State- respondent no.1 and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2. 3. In short the prosecution is that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the son of deceased alleging therein that his father had died 6 years ago and his mother Smt. Sunita Saket used to visit her aunt Soni Devi Saket in Surat Gujarat where appellant Manish Yadav came in contact with his mother. It is further alleged that appellant Manish Yadav used to live with his mother for about 3 years. Manish Yadav was addicted to drinking alcohol. About 10 days ago his mother along with Manish Yadav and younger sister went to Maghmela at Prayagraj and on January 29, 2023, at around 10:45 p.m., his mother was assaulted and attempted to be killed and with the intention of killing, appellant hit on her head with a brick and due to the head injury, his mother died while going to S.R.N. Hospital. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Raj Kumar Sharma, Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Manish Kumar Yadav .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 01.02.2023 and upon his confessional statement, false recovery has been made. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that on fateful day the appellant and deceased were in drunken state and sudden fight were started on the heat and passion. Further submission is that there was no eye witness of the alleged incident even there was no motive for the appellant to commit such crime in as much as prosecution witnesses also failed to attribute any strong motive against the appellant for committing crime in question, therefore, in absence of any strong motive false implication of appellant in the instant criminal case cannot be ruled out. At the highest, the instant case would fall under Section 304 part II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Further submission is that trial has not been started as yet and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. Appellant is languishing in jail since 01.02.2023 having no previous criminal history. Impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant. 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, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 9. Let the appellant-Manish Kumar Yadav, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two CRLA No. 4978 of 2025 2 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. September 25, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 4978 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad