Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141895 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5051 of 2025 Appellant :- Saurabh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Indra Dev Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. In this case notice has already been served upon the informant. 2. in pursuance of the order dated 13.08.2025, the personal affidavit of Sri Ashutosh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Meerut has been filed today, wherein in paragraph no. 5 it is stated that Senior Superintendent of Police, Meeut appointed Superintendent of Police (crime) Meerut to inquire into laxity and negligence and to submit its report within a week. In paragraph No. 7 it is clear that while preparing and generating the DCRB report has been conducted by the DCRB In charge and the departmental inquiry against against the said laxity and negligence is under considering against he erring officer. The deponent also tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology for the inconvenience cause to the Hon'ble Court. 3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant-Saurabh to set aside the order dated 08.05.2025 in Bail Application No.2789 of 2025 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No.133 of 2025, under Sections 109, 352, 351(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3) BNS & Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Lohiyanagar, District Meerut. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record. 5. According to the prosecution case, the incident took place on 07.03.2025 and the FIR has been lodged on the same day stating therein when his son was going from shop to his house the accused persons assaulted him with country made pistol and on his head and fled away from the place of occurrence. 6. 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. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. In the present case the appellant is not named in the FIR, also no recovery of weapon has been shown from the possession of the appellant. The appellant is not named in the FIR, but thereafter his name came into light in the statement of informant. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2025. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail had have submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set- aside. 11. Let the appellant-Saurabh 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. 12. 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 :- 19.8.2025 RPD Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad