Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92851 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 547 of 2025 Appellant :- Ankit Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pusp Raj Singh,Rajesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ankit Kumar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.164 of 2023 under Sections 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5A, 3(1)(Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. The prosecution has come forward with a case that in the intervening night of 16/17.5.2023, the accused appellant entered into the house of the victim, who was sleeping on the roof of the house and he made an attempt to outrage the modesty of the lady victim and when the next morning she alongwith her family members went to the house of the accused appellant to complain the incident to his father, she was beaten there and was also threatened for life. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. 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. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this case. It is also submitted that only some minor injuries have been found upon the body of the victim in her medical examination. It is also submitted that the whole story of the prosecution is totally false and fabricated and it does not seem to be plausible that the appellant all alone entered into the house of the informant and went upto the roof of the house. It is also submitted that there is no reliable independent witness of this case. The victim herself was examined as P.W.1 in the trial court and made some fluctuating statements herself. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 21.11.2024. Criminal history of two cases shown against the appellant have been duly explained. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kaushambi. 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. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and 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. His bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 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 concerned 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 Ankit Kumar involved in Case Crime No.164 of 2023 under Sections 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5A, 3(1)(Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi, 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. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad