Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14313 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11367 of 2024 Appellant :- Sachin Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pratap Kanchan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mahesh Prasad,Sharafat Ali Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is 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 - Sachin Singh with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.9.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bhadohi at Gyanpur and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.71 of 2024 under Sections 326-A/34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record. 4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 18.6.2024 when the Barat procession was moving at about 10:15 P.M. and the groom Sudama Gautam along with R.K. Buddh and J.K. Buddh was sitting on a chariot, two unknown persons came on a vehicle no.UP66M 8308 and threw acid upon them with a jug taken by them, inflicting serious burn injuries to all the above- named three persons. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown accused persons. 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 also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. On the date of alleged incident, the appellant was already detained in jail and he is not acquainted with other accused persons of this case. It is also submitted that he was earlier threatened by other co-accused persons namely, Sachin Bind and Yuvraj to implicate him falsely in some case. It is also submitted that co-accused Sachin Bind was having an affair with a girl whose marriage was scheduled to be held with Sudama whose Barat Procession was moving. The informant side started bargaining with him and when he refused to pay any amount, he was falsely roped in this case. Appellant is a student and no offence has been committed by him. He is languishing in jail since 4.9.2024 having no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Bhadohi. It is further submitted that the Court below 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. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that the present accused appellant had thrown acid over the face of groom Sudama and also two other persons causing serious burn injuries to their head, face, ear and hand. It is also submitted that the co-accused Sachin Bind was having an affair with Km. Shreya and used to threaten her for dire consequences if she does not marry him and her 'would be husband' was also threatened for dire consequences. He used to say that his friends Sachin Singh and Yuvraj can do anything for him. It is also submitted that the medical report supports the prosecution story completely. It is also submitted that not only the groom Sudama Gautam but two minor children sitting with him on the rath have also sustained very serious burn injuries and disfigurement. It is also submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured persons belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant and his active participation in the commission of the crime has come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. Offence is very grave and serious in nature and the prayer for rejection of the bail application and dismissal of appeal as well has been made. 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. Acid attacks not only cause damage to the physical appearance of its victims but also cause immense psychological trauma thereby becoming a hurdle in their overall development. Victims of this case had suffered an uncivilised crime committed by the accused persons. A crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material available on record, the Court is of the view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order rejecting the bail of the accused appellant. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 17.9.2024 is affirmed. No ground is made out to release the accused appellant on bail and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad