HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6152 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA as well as perused the entire record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Rohit to set-aside the impugned bail rejection order dated 01.07.2025 passed by Learned Special Judge, (S.C./ S.T. (P.Α.) Act), Moradabad in Second Bail Application No. 1967 of 2025 in Special Session Trail No.1144 of 2021 (State Vs. Vineet Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.375 of 2021, under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bhojpur, District- Moradabad with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case crime. 3. As per prosecution story, the impugned First Information Report dated 4.9.2021 was lodged by the father of the deceased against four named persons namely, Sachin, Jitendra, Rohit, Anis and one unknown person stating that his son was working as Security Guard in Sai Garden, Moradabad, which was situated in the city. He was also running a fair price shop in the village. On 4.9.2021, he was returning from duty. When he reached near the school of Nasir at about 7.30 a.m., the named accused persons, who were ambushed in a sugarcane field, fired upon his son. His son has died during the treatment. At the time of incident Kunwar Pal Singh and Rajendra were reached at the spot and they witnessed the incident. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pandey Balkrishna, Prashant Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rohit .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellant or from his pointing out. He further submits that co-accused persons, namely, Vineet Kumar, Ashish @ Ashish Pradhan and Ajit Singh, have already been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.11.2022 and 24.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1310 of 2022, 3708 of 2022 and 1029 of 2022. He further submits that there are 32 witnesses and till date, only 8 witnesses have been examined before the trial court, therefore, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. The appellant is languishing in jail since 20.3.2025 having criminal history of one case, which has been explained in paragraph no.56 of the affidavit.. 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail. 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- Rohit, 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. CRLA No. 6152 of 2025 2 (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. September 4, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 6152 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad