Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42009 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 873 of 2025 Appellant :- Dinesh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lalit Prakash,Narayan Swaroop Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rahul Mehrotra 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 - Dinesh Yadav with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 15.1.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Etah and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.155 of 2024 under Sections 352, 351(2)2, 324(2), 109 B.N.S and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Awagarh, District Etah. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record. 3. As per prosecution case, on 31.7.2024 and again on 1.8.2024 at about 5:00 P.M., the named accused persons Dinesh Yadav, Sachin @ Jeetu, Ravi and two unknown persons came to the agricultural land of the informant, caused damage to the pipeline and subsequently hurled abuses by caste related remarks and when it was protested by the son of the informant, on exhortation of the present accused appellant, the co-accused Sachin crushed the son of the informant by a tractor and all the accused persons fled away from the spot. Injured was taken to the hospital. Prior to the incident, the accused persons also used to abuse and threaten the son of the informant, which has been recorded in the mobile phone. F.I.R. was lodged. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the injured although was admitted in the Pushpanjali Hospital on 1.8.2024 but on 3.8.2024, which is after 2 days, he was discharged from the hospital, as he responded well to the treatment, which denotes that no serious injury was caused to the injured. It is also submitted that in chest scanning report, some abnormalities have been found by the doctor but however from the perusal of the F.I.R. and also in the statement of the witnesses the role of exhortation has been assigned to the present appellant. The tractor was never rammed upon the injured by the present appellant. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The abuse and threatening is said to be made on phone by the accused persons which further shows that the offence was not committed in any place within the public view. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2024 having no criminal antecedents to his credit, as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that serious injuries have been sustained by the injured in this incident and the offence was committed only because the injured belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 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, 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Dinesh Yadav involved in case crime no.155 of 2024 under Sections 352, 351(2)2, 324(2), 109 B.N.S and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Awagarh, District Etah, 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. 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 :- 20.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad