Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112667 Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7209 of 2024 Appellant :- Sumit Baghel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Kumar Srivastava,Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajnish Kumar Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA 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. None appears on behalf of respondents. Name of counsel for the respondents is shown in the cause list. 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 24.05.2024, 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Firozabad in Case Crime No. 153 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tundla, District-Firozabad. The applicant- appellant is in jail since 04.03.2024. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 24.05.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA from the record and which were neglected by the trial court, entitle the applicant for grant of bail, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. 2. No incriminating article was recovered from the applicant. 3. The applicant did not have any motive to commit the offence. 4. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial. 5. The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence. 6. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings. 7.The ordersheet appended to the bail application discloses that the prosecution evidence has concluded. The stage is set for proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C./introduction of defence evidence. 8. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said material witnesses or tampering with the evidence. 9. Continued incarceration of the applicant will disable her from crafting an effective defence strategy and prevent him from gathering evidence in her support and tendering the same before the learned trial court to establish his innocence. Further detention of the applicant will be detrimental to her defence in the trial and inconsistent with the norms of fairness in criminal processual jurisprudence. 10. This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while enlarging an accused on bail examined the right of accused for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing her innocence held: "Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard." 11. Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. 12. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. 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 is liable to be set aside and is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Let the appellant- Sumit Baghel 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 applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Dhananjai Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad