Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18327 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5968 of 2024 Appellant :- Mohd Azam Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhisht Jaiswal,Faiz Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Satish Mishra Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I on the basis of instructions submits that the notices upon the respondents have been served in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ajeet Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. & Another reported at 2021 (1) ADJ 559. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pyaragraj in Case Crime No. 191 of 2022, under Sections 307, 352, 326A, 34, 120-B and Section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Charwa District Kaushabmi. The applicant- appellant is in jail since 18.08.2022. The bail application of the appellant was rejected by the learned trial court on 18.04.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel and Shri Faiz Ahmad, learned counsels on behalf of the appellant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Satish Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of the first informant and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record and were neglected from consideration by the learned trial court, entitle the appellant for grant of bail: 1. The appellant was not nominated in the FIR as the principal offender who threw acid at the victim. 2. Victim has also not named the appellant as the principal offender who had attacked her with acid. 3. The appellant was nominated in the statement of co- accused persons made before the police authorities while in the custody of the latter. The said statement insofar as it implicates the appellant is not admissible in evidence. 4. The appellant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the appellant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application. In the light of the preceding discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence and evidence the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial court 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 to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set aside. Let the appellant- Mohd Azam be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the appellant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the appellant. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Jaswant Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad