Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127805 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6202 of 2025 Appellant :- Ram Lakhan Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. As per instruction received by the learned A.G.A. notice upon the informant has been served. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ram Lakhan Tiwari with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Bail Application No. 1271 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 169 of 2024 under Sections 302, 504, 120B I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Girwan, District- Banda. 3. As per prosecution case on 5.6.2024 at 8.30 am when Ratnesh, son of the informant, was going along with the road he was prevented by named accused persons Ganga Prasad Tiwari, Ram Lakhan Tiwari and Sneh Kumar Tiwari @ Chunnu. They hurled abuses him by caste related remarks and when it was protested by the Ratnesh all the named accused persons brutely assaulted him by stone pelting. The incident was seen by wife of the deceased and Pushpendra. The deceased died in the incident and FIR was lodged on 5.6.2024 at 5.10 pm by Shiv Karan, the father of the deceased. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that no specific role of any of the accused persons has been assigned in the FIR. It is further submitted that the informant of this case is not the eye-witness of the case. The I.O. has recorded the statement of three eyewitnesses of the case namely Smt. Mira, Pushpendra and Smt. Hiramani and all the aforesaid three eye-witnesses have made a statement before the I.O. in specific terms that the deceased was actually attacked by Ganga Prasad and he has been assigned a role of committing murder of the deceased whereas the other co-accused persons including the present appellant were assigned the role of exhortation and criminal conspiracy in the alleged crime. It is also submitted that in the post mortem report of the deceased only one lacerated wound has been found upon the skull area of the deceased. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no eyewitness interrogated by the I.O. who has stated that any assault was made by the present appellant upon the deceased. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 8.6.2024 having no criminal antecedents. It is lastly submitted 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 AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 but however he could not dispute this fact that none of the eye-witnesses have assigned the role of assault to the present appellant and only a role of exhortation and criminal conspiracy has been assigned to the present 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, severity of punishment, role of the appellant, incarceration period, clean criminal record, the Court is of the opinion that 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 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. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad