Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24558 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11769 of 2024 Appellant :- Ranjeet Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anubhav Kumar Vats,Vinay Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. 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- Ranjeet Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj in Bail Application No. 1862 of 2024. 3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that on 19.01.2024 at about 4:00 pm when the informant who belongs to the SC/ST community was doing some work in his field the present accused/appellant came there and by hurling abuses by caste related remarks, he made an assault upon the informant and threatened for dire consequences. F.I.R. was lodged. 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 also submitted that the informant of this case in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has made some statements contrary to the F.I.R. version. It is further submitted that the medical report of the informant reveals that he has sustained only a simple injuries in this case. It is also submitted that no reliable independent witness supported the prosecution case in this matter. It is further submitted that the accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 18.11.2024 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 has opposed the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belongs to the SC/ST community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 18.11.2024. 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- Ranjeet Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 56 of 2024, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 of IPC & Section 3(1)(Da) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kannauj District- Kannauj 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 :- 19.2.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad