HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5933 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hapur in Case Crime No. 299 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gadhmukteshwar, District Hapur. 4. As per the FIR and prosecution case, on 17.05.2025 at about 9:30 PM, the informant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, went to purchase beer at Ravidas Chowk English Wine Shop. He paid ₹200 for a beer bottle priced at ₹190 but was not given back ₹10. When he protested against overcharging, the present appellant Rahul @ Shera along with co-accused Mohit Gurjar and another salesman allegedly dragged him inside the shop, abused him with caste-based derogatory words, and assaulted him with a broken beer bottle and iron rod with intent to kill. As a result, the informant sustained serious injuries on head, chest, abdomen and neck, requiring about 30–32 stitches. He was first taken to CHC Gadh and then referred to Meerut Medical College due to his critical condition. The prosecution alleges that the accused also Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Atul Kumar Tiwari, Saleem Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rahul @ Shera .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) threatened to kill the informant in future if he opposed overcharging again. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated. The FIR was lodged with delay of one day though the police station is only 2 km from the place of occurrence, and there is no satisfactory explanation of such delay. It is further urged that the appellant is a salesman at a wine shop, where the alleged altercation took place in the backdrop of a dispute regarding price of beer. It is argued that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident and the so-called eye-witnesses are close friends of the informant, making their testimony doubtful. It is further contended that the appellant is in custody since 19.05.2025, has no previous criminal history, and there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with evidence. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant may have occurred in the scuffle started by the informant himself who was under the influence of liquor, and the allegations of caste-based abuse are concocted only to attract stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel further submits that continued incarceration of the appellant, particularly when trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, would amount to violation of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the said fact. 7. 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. 8. 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. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order CRLA No. 5933 of 2025 2 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the appellant Rahul @ Shera, involved in the 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 cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court. 12. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. September 11, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 5933 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad