HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7231 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. Mr Kamal Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today, which is taken on 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- Sandeep Kumar Dixit Alias Sonu, to set aside the order dated 21.07.2025 in Bail Application No. 94 of 2025 and to release him on bail in Session Trial No. 06A/2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 83 of 2025, under Sections 376D, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ ST Act, P.S. Madhaugrah, District Jalaun. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the incident is shown to have take place on 18.09.2022 while the complaint has been lodged on 11.10.2022 without any plausible explanation. The appellant is in jail since 28.05.2025. It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused person, namely, Shivam Pachauri and Shivkant Tiwari @ Raju Tiwari and Raj Pachauri have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 & 23.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3743 of 2024 and 10272 of 2023, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.It is further submitted that the appellant has explained the criminal history of seven cases under paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail. 4. I have perused the bail orders of the co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present appellant is almost similar to that of co-accused persons, who have already been granted bail by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the application for bail but could not dispute the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Tarun Jha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sandeep Kumar Dixit Alias Sonu .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 8. Let the appellant- Sandeep Kumar Dixit Alias Sonu, 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. (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. 9. 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 1, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 7231 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad