HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5296 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 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 23.05.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Prayagraj in Case Crime No.143 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 3(5), 126(2), 309(4) BNS and Section 3/25 Arms Act and Section 351(2) BNS as well as Section 3(2) v, 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State- respondent no.1, Mr. Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the informant-respondent no.2 and perused the entire record. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 05.04.2025 at about 7.30 pm the informant alongwith his nephew Shiv Kumar and his friend Rishabh were going on motorcycle towards pologround Mazar for Darshan where accused persons, namely, Lochan, Salman, Jeegran, Shahiba, Neeraj Kumar were already standing there and they have stopped them and suddenly Lochan took out the key of the motorcycle and kept it with him whereas Salman, Jeegran, Sahiba while using caste related words took out their pistol and fired upon the informant nephew Shiv Kumar with the intention to kill, as a result, he sustained injuries and become unconscious. It is further alleged that the accused persons have also committed maarpeet with them by iron rod. It is further alleged that when the informant has raised alarm, the accused persons after snatching the motorcycle ran away from the place of occurrence. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : D.M.Tripathi, J.B. Singh, Mayank Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rama Kant Gupta, Virendra Singh Parmar Mohd Zikran .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Impugned FIR is delayed about one day. As per FIR, there are 9 accused persons named and during investigation 2 persons were also added. Only general allegation has been levelled. No specific role assigned to any of the accused persons. From perusal of the FIR, it is not clear as to who was the author of the alleged incident. Further submission is that only charge sheet has been filed and till date charge has not been framed and no witness has been examined as ye and 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. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025 having previous criminal history of two cases in which appellant is on bail. 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. as well as learned counsel for the informant 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-Mohd Zikran, 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 CRLA No. 5296 of 2025 2 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 4, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 5296 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad