Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32811 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10126 of 2024 Appellant :- Malu Alias Malkhan Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha,Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Dhirendra Bahadur Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the appellant and counter affidavit on behalf of the State are taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Malu Alias Malkhan Singh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 23.9.2024 and 30.9.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lalitpur and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 87 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 119(1), 117(2) of BNS and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Poorakalan, District Lalitpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/ informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that criminal history of appellant has not been sufficiently explained and the bail / acquittal orders have not been annexed with the record whereas learned counsel for the appellant submits that the criminal history of the appellant has been sufficiently explained on oath and some orders have also been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. Nothing has been concealed regarding the criminal history of the appellant. 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 further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the present appellant and only general role has been assigned whereas there are four accused persons in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that in the statement of the injured itself no specific role of assault has been assigned to any of the accused and even in the supplementary statement given by the injured again no specific role of assault to any of the accused persons has been assigned. Although some fractures have been found on the body of the injured but no most sensitive part of the body is involved. It is also submitted that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation for the same. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant is in jail since 10.9.2024. The Court concerned while passing the impugned orders 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 orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellant suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 / informant opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders but however, they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the appellant by the injured of the case. 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, the fact that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail applications of the appellant. The impugned orders suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail application of the appellant are set-aside. 10. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in the 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. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad