HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1487 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. C.M. Amendment Application No. 1A/4/2025 Heard. The amendment application is allowed. Necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. Order in Appeal Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that the notices upon the respondents have been served in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ajeet Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. & Another reported at 2021 (1) ADJ 559. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ambedkarnagar in Case Crime No. 21 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station-Sammanpur, District Ambedkarnagar. The applicant-appellant is on interim bail since 20.02.2025. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Yogesh Gupta, Ramesh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Jai Pal Singh Chalaku Paal @ Nanhe Lal .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) trial court on 31.01.2025. The following arguments made by Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Jai Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA from the record and which the trial court neglected to consider, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant-appellant was falsely implicated under the provisions of the SC/ST Act only on account of village rivalry. 2. The prosecution evidence has not connected the applicant to the injuries sustained in the incident. The injuries are of minor nature and were not caused in the alleged incident. 3. The applicant-appellant has been sentenced for one year by the learned trial court. He has already undergone imprisonment for a period of seven months. 4. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a false case to burnish their professional credentials. The said case does not have any bearing on the instant bail application. In the light of the preceding discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence and evidence the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order dated 31.01.2025 is liable to be set aside and is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Let the appellant-Chalaku Paal @ Nanhe Lal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the CRLA No. 1487 of 2025 2 interest of justice:- (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. August 28, 2025 Vandit CRLA No. 1487 of 2025 3 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench