Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26129 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12065 of 2024 Appellant :- Ankush Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhavya Sahai,Dipendra Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sukrampal Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ankush with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Muzaffarnagar and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 348 of 2024 under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar. 2. Heard Shri Brijesh Sahai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the opposite party no.2 even in the revised call. 3. Prosecution case, as culled out from the F.I.R., is that on 18.8.2024 at about 8.30 a.m. on account of some previous altercation the named accused persons carrying lathi, danda and knife in their hands came to the house of Surendra, brother of the informant, and hurled abuses and in the meanwhile the present appellant with intention to kill Smt. Babita made a blow in her abdomen by knife and when Rajan Pal tried to mediate the matter, he was also assaulted with the aid of knife by the present appellant. Injured persons were medically examined. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted. 4. It is submitted by the learned Senior 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 as a matter of fact injured Babita and Rajan Pal have sustained only simple injuries. The doctor, who medically examined the injured Babita has clearly opined that the injury to the injured Babita was caused with some hard and blunt object. Prosecution case is false and fabricated and as a matter of fact the present case has a cross- case lodged from the accused side at case crime no. 349 of 2024, under Sections 110, 115(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 at P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar wherein accused side has also sustained serious injuries. It is further submitted that the story of causing injuries to the accused side by the informant side has been deliberately concealed in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that when the accused side was tried to defence itself, some injuries were caused to the informant side in the process of defence. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. 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 25.8.2024. The Court concerned 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 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured persons belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Two persons have sustained injuries from informant side. Injured Babita received knife injury on her abdomen which is vital part of the body. Medical reports corroborate the prosecution version, however, the factum of F.I.R. lodged at case crime no. 349 of 2024 from the accused side has not been disputed by him. 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, and the fact that the present case has a cross-case also, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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 :- 24.2.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad