Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19456 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10167 of 2024 Appellant :- Sitaram And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shekhar Gangal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants - 1. Sitaram, 2. Devendra, 3. Bhola @ Deepak and 4. Lala @ Santosh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.9.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), in Bail Application No. 3789 of 2024. 3. The prosecution story as culled out in the FIR is that on 25.3.2024 on the occasion of Holi festival the four named accused persons/ present appellants came to the house of the informant made an assault upon the family of the informant and also her daughter in law (bahu). They sustained serious injuries. FIR was lodged on 28.3.2024 and now the charge sheet has been submitted. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to any of the appellants of this case. It is further submitted that in the FIR there is no mention at all regarding the fact of termination of pregnancy of the lady injured. It is also submitted that the injured persons have sustained only simple injuries. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact during Holi festival the injured lady suddenly fell down which was the cause of the termination of her pregnancy. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is vague and uncertain. It is also submitted that the FIR of this case has been lodged three days after the incident and there is no plausible explanation of this inordinate delay. The trial Court 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. Appellants are in jail since 14.8.2024 having no criminal history to their credit.. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 3.9.2024. He has mainly referred the statement of the doctor recorded by the I.O. who stated that by the assault made by present appellants, the pregnancy of the lady injured Urmila Devi was terminated. 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, severity of punishment, also the fact that no specific role of assault has been assigned to any of the appellants, the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR without any proper explanation of the same, the incarceration period of the present appellants, who are said to be in jail since 14.8.2024 and clear criminal antecedents of the appellants, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the appellants- 1. Sitaram, 2. Devendra, 3. Bhola @ Deepak and 4. Lala @ Santosh involved in Case Crime No. 43 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 313 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Vijaygarh, District- Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v) The appellants 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 them 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. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad