Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41636 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 757 of 2025 Appellant :- Ghanshyam Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Although office report reflects that report regarding service of notice upon opposite party no.2 is awaited but no private person has been shown in the array of opposite parties and this appeal has to be contested by the State. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ghanshyam Singh with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 6.1.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Jaunpur and release the appellant on bail in Session Trial No.120A of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.1342 of 2010, under Sections 147, 323, 332, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur. 4. In this case, the F.I.R. was lodged on 3.12.2009 by the informant, who is a Sub-inspector posted at Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur, with the allegation that it was brought to his notice that on 2.12.2009, the accused Bhuval Singh alias Guddu alongwith his associates came to the Office of the Block Development Officer namely, Hari Lal at Block Rampur and after hurling abuses of caste related remarks and making assault upon him, threatened him for dire consequences. Due to fear, the injured refused to give written report. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No such incident has taken place, as alleged in the F.I.R. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the S.C./S.T. Act are not established in this matter. General and vague allegations have been levelled against the appellant by the alleged victim. Entire story narrated in the F.I.R. is false and incorrect. It is also submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter. It is also submitted that the informant of this case Suresh Kumar Singh, the alleged victim of this case Hari Lal and the witness of fact Kanhaiya Lal were produced before the trial court as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively, who have been declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not support the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the witnesses of fact P.W.4 Arvind Kumar and P.W.5 Dhananjay Kumar were also produced before the court and they also did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. It is also submitted that the appellant is having no criminal antecedents to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 27.12.2024 and as such he is entitled for bail and his appeal deserves to be allowed. It is next submitted that 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 bail rejection order. 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. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present appeal but could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the informant, the victim and all the witnesses of fact have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 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 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the appellant Ghanshyam Singh involved in Case Crime No.1342 of 2010, under Sections 147, 323, 332, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur, 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 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. 11. 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 :- 20.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad