Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27752 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10954 of 2024 Appellant :- Taina @ Nempal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Shiromani Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar 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- Taina @ Nempal with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Moradabad, in Bail Application No. 3051 of 2024. 3. It is a case of day light incident of theft which was committed by the present accused/appellant, after entering into the house of the informant and also tried to outrage the modesty of his young sister and fled away with cash money and jewellery. F.I.R. was lodged. Now the charge-sheet has been submitted. 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 in the F.I.R. of this case and even in the statement of the victim under section 180 BNSS no allegation of rape against the accused/appellant has been levelled. It is further submitted that recovery of Rs. 4,100/- is said to be made from the possession of the accused/appellant, but it cannot be said that the said recovered amount was stolen from the house of the informant. It is also submitted that no jewellery or other stolen money has been recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant. It is also submitted that the whole prosecution story is false and concocted. It is next further submitted that the accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 17.08.2024 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. 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- Taina @ Nempal involved in Case Crime No. 531 of 2024, under Section 305(a), 115(2), 64(1), 333, 317(2) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)v of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad 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 :- 27.2.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad