HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7519 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the to set aside the order dated 7.08.2025 passed in Bail Application No.3320 of 2025 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2025,(Special Session Trial No. 2143 of 2025), under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 131, 117(2), 3(5) B.N.S. & Section 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State. 3. According to the prosecution case, the incident took place on 24.05.2025, the FIR of the incident has been lodged on the same day stating therein that on the day of incident his son namely Ashutosh, aged about 20 years, student of B. Forma was coming for appearing in the examination along with his friend Aryan. After completion of paper, when both were coming, on the way due to some enmity, the appellants along with 2-3 unknown persons assaulted his son by using lathi, danda and pistol, consequently the son of the informant has died on the spot. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. The Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhishek Kumar, Manvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Shukla, G.A. Ayush .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) informant is not an eye witness of the alleged incident. There are material contradictions in the statements of the informant as well as other witnesses recorded under section 180 B.N.S. As per the statement of the injured, the specific role has been assigned to the Udit Rod. General role has been assigned to the appellant. As per post mortem examination report one abrasion and one fire arm injury was found on the body of the deceased. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Co-accused Aayush Kumar has already been granted bail vide order dated 25.8.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 6970 of 2025, therefore the appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Appellant is languishing in jail since 25.05.2025. 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 A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail but could not dispute that the co-accused has already been released on 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- Aayush 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 CRLA No. 7519 of 2025 2 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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. .... September 15, 2025 A. CRLA No. 7519 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad