Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27673 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10883 of 2024 Appellant :- Nandu @ Nand Kishore Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mahesh Kumar,Ravi Shankar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State 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 has been preferred by the appellant- Nandu @ Nand Kishore with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Second Additional District & Sessions Judge Court No. 2/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat in Bail Application No. 1607 of 2024. 3. In the instant matter the accused-Nandu @ Nand Kishore after getting bail from the trial court became absent from 03.04.2023 and an order to issue non bailable warrant was passed by the trial court. Subsequently on 23.02.2024 he was arrested by the police and sent to the jail by the trial court. Now he has been languishing in jail since more then one year and he is under trial prisoner. 4. 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 establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the present appeal has been filed on this ground that the accused/appellant had undergone operation in the hospital and became serious and that is why he could not appear before the court and punitive action has been taken by the trial court. He also submitted that if the appellant is granted bail by this Court he undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the proceeding of trial for expeditious disposal of this case. It is further submitted that the accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 23.02.2024 and he is having no criminal history to his credit. 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 lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the bail application but however, could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that since 23.02.2024 the accused/appellant is languishing in jail. 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, 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- Nandu @ Nand Kishore involved in Case Crime No. 244 of 2005, (Special Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2006), under Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, and Section 302 IPC, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat 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. 11. However, it is clarified that, if on a subsequent occasion the court finds any deliberate absent of the accused/appellant coercion action may be taken against him. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad