HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5004 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 07.05.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Bareilly in Bail Application No.1675 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.07 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) BNS and Section 3(2) (V) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Kyoladia, District Bareilly. 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 on 03.01.2025 at about 6.30 pm, the brother-in-law (dewar) of the complainant was returning from Bareilly, near his village Panwadiya the accused persons, namely, Champa Devi, Arjun Lal and Jitendra Kumar and also 4-5 unknown persons assaulted the deceased by sharp-edge weapon and lathi, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and while taking to the hospital, he was died on the way. 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 committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Appellant is a student. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant even the appellant is not named in the FIR. Delayed FIR has been lodged against three named accused persons and 4-5 unknown person. After ten days of the alleged incident, the complicity of the appellant has been shown during investigation only on the basis of statement of the complainant. Nothing incriminating article has been Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Alok Sharma, Amit Kumar Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Pankaj Yadav .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) recovered from the possession or pointing out of the appellant. Further submission is that at the time of preparation of panchayatnama, the impugned FIR was not in existence. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. 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 18.01.2025 having no previous criminal history. Further submission is that the 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-Pankaj Yadav, 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 CRLA No. 5004 of 2025 2 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. 5004 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad