Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65278 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10072 of 2024 Appellant :- Jeetesh Kumar Kushwaha Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Chaube Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mrityunjay Dwivedi Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Jeetesh Kumar Kushwaha with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 402 of 2024, under Sections 380, 386, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh. 3. The prosecution story as culled out in the F.I.R. is that the accused appellant and informant were living in a rented room as husband and wife with mutual consent. The appellant had produced forged divorce papers and presented himself as divorcee and grabbed some money from the informant. When marital status of the accused appellant came to the knowledge of the informant, she got herself separated from the appellant and went to her own house after locking the room. The appellant proposed the informant by mobile call and message to live with him and also took away several original documents, cheque book, Registration Certificate of the vehicle and other household materials from the room after breaking the lock on 31.03.2024. Meanwhile he also grabbed Rs. 5 lacs from the informant which she had online transferred in the bank account of the appellant. When the informant demanded the original documents, household articles and Rs.5 lacs from the appellant, he started to blackmail her by making some obscene photographs viral and threatened the husband of the sister of the informant and her two years old son for life. He had been continuously causing mental torture to the informant since the year 2012. F.I.R. was lodged and now charge sheet has been submitted. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the appellant is a married person living with his wife but the informant has levelled certain false allegations against him. She was insisting the appellant to take divorce from his wife and to marry with her and also quarreled with the wife of the appellant and a criminal complaint was filed by Smt. Meenu Kumari, wife of the appellant against the informant. It is further submitted that the appellant was married in the year 2014 and he had never promised to the informant to marry her. All the allegations regarding theft of the household articles and other things relating to the informant are totally false and fabricated. Both the appellant and informant were working at same place and on few occasions some monetary help was offered by the informant to the appellant. She had been continued in making efforts to separate the appellant from his wife and to divorce her and that was the reason the false F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant. It is next submitted that no offence under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant and he had never threatened the informant of this case. It is next submitted that 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. It is also submitted that the appellant is in jail since 07.09.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 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. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the informant initially helped the appellant by transferring Rs. 5 lacs through bank transaction. Since the appellant was a liar and presented himself as divorcee before the informant, she started living with him in a rented room. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has collected the ample evidence to the effect that several threatenings were given by the appellant to the husband of sister of the informant and her two years old son for life. The informant has corroborated the F.I.R. version when she was interrogated by the Investigating Officer of this case. 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, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and considering the fact that the informant of this case is a major lady and she on her own will had been living for some considerable time with the appellant as a married couple and no promise of false marriage was made by the appellant to her, statement of the wife of the appellant in his favour, incarceration period of the appellant and no criminal history of the accused appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has 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 appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the appellant- Jeetesh Kumar Kushwaha involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 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. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad