Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131105 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 781 of 2025 Appellant :- Akhtar Ali Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chanchal Kumar Singh,Satish Chandra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shahroze Khan Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mohd. Zafar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, 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 - Akhtar Ali with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Siddharth Nagar in connection of Case Crime No. 85 of 2024 under Sections 108 BNS & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chilihiya, District- Siddharth Nagar. 3. The deceased/ daughter of the informant committed suicide in the house of the present appellant by hanging herself. FIR was lodged and investigation started. Now the charge sheet in this matter has been submitted. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the deceased having some affairs with Nawab Ali, brother of the present appellant who came back from Mumbai after about 3 years and in the morning at about 4.00 am the deceased reached at the house of Nawab Ali and she was humiliated there by all the family members of the said Nawab Ali and he himself and feeling aggrieved and depressed with the conduct of the accused persons the young girl committed suicide in the room of Wajid Ali, son of the present appellant by hanging herself. 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. 5. It is further submitted that the essential elements to constitute the offence under Section 108 BNS (Section 306 I.P.C. ) are completely missing in this matter. As a matter of of fact the deceased was having affair with Nawab, son of the present appellant and she reached at about 4.00 am at the house of Nawab. It is further submitted that the informant in his statement under Section 180 BNSS has stated that she was only scolded by the present appellant and her family members, nothing more has been averred by the informant. In his statement the other witness Ram Naresh has only found this fact that the dead body was found in the house of the appellant hanging in a closed room. It is also submitted that there was no reason for the deceased to commit suicide after entering into the house of the present appellant. It is also submitted that since the said Nawab returned his home after three years from Mumbai nothing has been alleged in the FIR or in the statement made by the prosecution witnesses that during this period of three years she was ever instigated or provoked in any way to commit suicide. 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. Appellant is in jail since 12.10.2024 having no criminal history. It is also submitted that co-accused Sitarunnisha and Sarvarjahan have already been granted bail vide order dated 26.5.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 685 of 2025 and 665 of 2025 respectively. 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 AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 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. 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 10. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 she 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 PS Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad