HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7891 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.01 of 2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the bail rejection order dated 31.07.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Agra in Bail Application No.4143 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 336, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1) (da) and 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Agra. 2. Heard Mr. Nagendra Bahadur Singh, assisted by Ms. Puja Singh and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2. 3. This is third bail application of the appellant. The first bail has been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2385 of 2022 whereas the second bail application was rejected on 22.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2023, copies of bail orders has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit. 4. Prosecution story in brief is that on 13.02.2022 at about 09.00 O'clock when the informant was standing at his street, at that time, appellant started abusing him by using derogatory words towards his caste and upon making protest, the accused persons assaulted him by stick (lathi), as a result of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhishek Kumar Saroj, Anil Kumar, Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Karan Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) which, he sustained serious injuries on his head. 5. 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. Impugned FIR has been lodged against appellant and co-accused Golu and also 2 unknown persons. Only general role assigned. No specific role assigned to the appellant. Sole submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there are 10 witnesses and out of them only five witnesses have been examined till now. PW-1 is the injured, who has not supported the prosecution story in cross examination and other witnesses, who are eye witnesses have been examined as PW-2, 3, 4 and 5, have also not supported the prosecution story. The appellant is languishing in jail since March, 2022 and in near future there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. Appellant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2022 having previous criminal history of some cases in which appellant is on bail. Impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 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, 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. CRLA No. 7891 of 2025 2 10. Let the appellant-Karan Singh, 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. 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. September 25, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 7891 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad