Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89506 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 896 of 2025 Appellant :- Kamlesh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamlendra Singh Jadaun Counsel for Respondent :- Anurodh Tripathi,G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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 - Kamlesh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions/Special Judge (POCSOT Act), Sonbhadra, in Bail Application No. 145 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2024 under Sections 61(2), 87, 142 and 99 of BNS & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra. 3. Brief facts of the present case is that missing report of the minor daughter of the informant was lodged in the Police Station on 10.12.2024, in which, it was narrated that a girl was missing since 28.11.2024 and the FIR was lodged against unknown persons. However, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against eight accused persons. 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. It is further submitted that he was not named in the FIR and his name came into light in the statement of co-accused Sandeep. It is further submitted that in the statement of the victim herself recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNS that she has not taken the name of the present applicant. It is further submitted that he has not committed any sexual offence with the victim. It is further submitted that only the allegation against the applicant is that he managed the marriage of the prosecutrix with other co-accused Vikram Chand Singh. It is further submitted that it is absolutely no role in the kidnapping of the minor victim neither any such allegation is leveled against him as per the statement of victim. It is further submitted that co- accused persons Sachchidanand Pandey and Anikt Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.10390 of 2025 and 9935 of 2025, vide orders dated 4.4.2025 and 2.4.2025 respectively. 5. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. 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 22.12.2024. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit. 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 counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 as well as learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community but could not dispute that the no sexual act has been committed with the minor victim. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 23.01.20215. 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 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. 1. 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 :- 26.5.2025 Akram Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad