Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39508 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 514 of 2025 Appellant :- Muqeem Alias Salua Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Afsana,Zafeer Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Muqeem Alias Salua with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Agra and to release the appellant on bail in case Crime No. 276 of 2024, under Sections 191 (2), 191(3), 190, 109, 351(2), 3(5), 352 B.N.S. of 2023, Section 3(2) 5, 3(1)Da, 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Trans Yamuna, Distict Agra. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on account of some dispute between two groups, firing was made upon Shiv Kumar who sustained firearm injury and accused persons Mukeem alias Salua and Asif alongwith some other persons participated in the occurrence but at the same time one of the accused persons was caught hold by public. The injured was medically examined and F.I.R. was lodged. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. It is further submitted that the appellant was not aware that the injured belongs to scheduled caste community. It is next submitted that as per prosecution story, firing was made simultaneously by many accused persons but it was not alleged that who caused injury upon the injured. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that even the injured in his statement given before the Investigating Officer nowhere states that the firing was made upon him by the appellant. It is next submitted that the alleged recovery of country made pistol on the pointing out of the appellant is absolutely false and concocted story and it is not supported by the statement of the injured. It is also submitted that the court concerned 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. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 16.07.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 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. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the incident of firing upon the injured was witnessed by the public. It is further submitted that grievous and serious gun shot injury was caused to the injured and country made pistol used in the commission of crime was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant but however he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter that any certificate under Section 65B Information Technology Act has not been issued. 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, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the appellant Muqeem Alias Salua involved in aforesaid case crime 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. (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. 11. 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 :- 18.3.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad