The court ruled that the denial of bail was erroneous due to insufficient evidence supporting the prosecution's case, allowing the appellant to be released on bail under specific conditions.

JUDGMENT :

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no.2, no one is present on his behalf.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Bilal with the prayer to allow the present appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.281 of 2024 under Sections 190, 191(2), 192(3), 109, 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)5, 3(2)5Ka S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Daurala, District Meerut.

3. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ambreen Masroor and Sri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

4. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the six named and some other unknown persons made an assault upon the informant, Kuldeep and Vinay with intention to kill. Fire was made twice by the present appellant Bilal s/o Ahsan upon the informant and when he tried to take his pistol, one fire was again made by him but the same was also missed and the pistol of the appellant was snatched by the informant. F.I.R. was lodged and the injured persons were medically examined and now after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this case. It is also submitted that as per prosecution case, six named and some other unknown persons made assault upon three persons but they all have received only three injuries which is not probable and creates a serious dent on the prosecution story. It is also submitted that only simple injuries have been found upon the person of all the three injured persons. No firearm injury was caused to any of the injured person which is an admitted case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut. It is further 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 lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 7.10.2024. Criminal history of one case against the appellant has already been explained.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and prayer for bail and it has been vehemently argued that fire was made thrice by the accused appellant with intention to kill which fulfills the ingredients of Section 109 B.N.S.

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, severity of punishment, 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 set-aside.

10. Let the appellant Bilal involved in Case Crime No.281 of 2024 under Sections 190, 191(2), 192(3), 109, 115(