HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2796 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant was rejected in Case Crime No. 1111 of 2024, Under Sections 3(5), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Barabanki. Learned counsel for the appellant, Taj Mohammad, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. (First Information Report), and his name was only developed during the course of the investigation. No specific role regarding the primary act of conversion or atrocity has been assigned to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the main co-accused, namely Murshid @ Mo. Murseed and Riyasat Ali, who were the primary accused named in the FIR for the allegations of conversion, have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 10.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2025. Furthermore, the co-accused, Mohammad Mohsin (owner of Atifa Restaurant), has also been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2025. Given that the main co-accused involved in the allegations have been granted bail, the present appellant is entitled to be released on the principle of parity. The appellant is innocent and undertakes to appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses. The appellant is in jail since 19.08.2025. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Taj Mohammad .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) appellant committed a serious offence involving the forced religious conversion of a minor belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. They asserted that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki, rightly dismissed the bail application considering the gravity of the crime. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the main co-accused, namely Murshid @ Mo. Murseed and Riyasat Ali, and co-accused Mohammad Mohsin, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The Court also notes the submission of the appellant that he was not named in the FIR, and his name developed during the investigation, with no specific role assigned. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the appellant's undertaking and the principle of parity with the co-accused who have already been granted bail, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki, arising out of Case Crime No. 1111 of 2024, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Taj Mohammad be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25.000/- and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions: (1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during tria. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (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 shall 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.PC. CRLA No. 2796 of 2025 2 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 As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order. October 9, 2025 Haseen U. CRLA No. 2796 of 2025 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench