HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6854 of 2025 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6866 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal. 3. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been preferred by the appellants with a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.6.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Baghpat and to release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No.297 of 2025 under Section 103(1) B.N.S.,2023 and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Baraut, District - Baghpat. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Swetashwa Agarwal, Yash Raj Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Swetashwa Agarwal, Yash Raj Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ajay Sharma @ Neetu .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Pintu Sharma .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) have been falsely implicated in the case by the informant only on the basis of suspicion. Initially, the first information report was lodged against unknown persons when dead body of the informant's son Vikas was recovered on 19.5.2025. When statement of informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, he stated that he has a doubt against the family members of Ankit, who might have committed murder of informant's son Vikas because the brother of the appellants was murdered seven years ago. Dharmendra and Ravi, who were respectively real brother and cousin of the deceased were present at the time of inquest, which was conducted on 19.5.2025. At the time of inquest, no statement regarding the involvement of the accused was made by them before the Investigating Officer. Later on, their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after 13 days, i.e., on 2.6.2025 and they merely stated that both the appellants going towards the canal alongwith spade where dead body of the deceased was recovered. Even there was no eye witness to show that deceased and the appellants were last seen together before the commission of the murder. In such circumstances, the appellants are entitled for bail at this stage. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the appellants had a motive to commit the murder of the deceased Vikas and witnesses have disclosed that certain quarrel between the deceased and the appellants had taken place in the afternoon of the alleged incident. Moreover, the appellants going towards the canal, from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered, sufficiently suggests that the deceased was murdered by the present appellants. Hence, they are not entitled for any relief. 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 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, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting CRLA No. 6854 of 2025 2 the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. 9. Let the appellants, namely Ajay Sharma @ Neetu and Pintu Sharma, involved in Case Crime No.297 of 2025 under Section 103(1) B.N.S.,2023 and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Baraut, District - Baghpat, 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 7, 2025 SK CRLA No. 6854 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad