Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41991 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1368 of 2025 Appellant :- Arun Tiwari @ Pinku Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar,Bhuvan Dwivedi,Rama Niwas Pathak,Rupa Pandey,Soumya Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Badul Hasan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent and Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in bail application arising out of Case Crime No. 470 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "I.P.C.") and Sections 3(1)(x) of Act of 1989, P.S. Raunahi, District - Faizabad (now Ayodhya). 3. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 17.04.2025, it is stated that the appellant is in jail since 09.04.2025 in connection with Case Crime No. 470 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "I.P.C.") and Sections 3(1)(x) of Act of 1989, P.S. Raunahi, District - Faizabad (now Ayodhya). 4. It is further stated that FIR, basis of pending criminal case, was lodged on 20.12.2016. Further submission is that after proceedings against the applicant in terms of Secction 80/82 Cr.P.C., the appellant appeared before the Court and was sent to jail and is in jail since 09.04.2025. 5. It is further submitted that the appellant would remain present on the date fixed either through personally or through counsel and would not take unnecessary adjournment before the trial Court and would cooperate in the expeditious disposal of trial with the prosecution. 6. It is also submitted that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51. 7. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 09.04.2025 and has having no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Shri Badul Hasan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent and Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. 9. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as also the judgment passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra). 10. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed. 11. the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in bail application arising out of Case Crime No. 470 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "I.P.C.") and Sections 3(1)(x) of Act of 1989, P.S. Raunahi, District - Faizabad (now Ayodhya) is set aside. 12. Let appellant -Arun Tiwari @ Pinku, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 13. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law 14. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench