Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14388 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4004 of 2024 Appellant :- Anoop Kumar Lodh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Surya Prakash,Arsh Bugga Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on the private respondent, but none has appeared on her behalf and, therefore, the matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 474 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 383 of 2017, under Sections 323, 376D, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Dhaurahra, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a dispute in between the parties related to the purchase of property, as a result, some quarrel was taken place with the complainant of the present case. He also submits that on the basis of concocted facts, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved, in which, order was passed for lodging of F.I.R., as a result, F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 383 of 2017 was lodged. He further submits that during the course of investigation, statements of eye witnesses, namely, Asharam and Ramjeevan were recorded, in which, they categorically stated that quarrel of the appellant was taken place with the complainant. He further submits that charge sheet was prepared by the Investigating Officer under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act and at the time of cognizance, learned Special Court added Section 376-D I.P.C., which is not permissible in the eyes of law. He also submits that during the course of investigation, appellant cooperated in the investigation and he never misused the liberty granted by the Investigating Officer. It is lastly submitted that the co- accused, Balram Kahar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 3992 of 2024. Photocopy of the said order provided by the learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. It is, thus, submitted that applicant, who is in jail since 17.11.2024, is also entitled for bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant, but does not dispute the fact that the eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. Learned A.G.A. also concedes the fact that co-accused Balram Kahar has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3992 of 2024. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., ground of parity and going through the impugned judgment as well as other relevant documents, including the statement of eye witnesses, it is evident that charge sheet was prepared by the Investigating Officer under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, but at the time of cognizance, learned Special Court added Section 376-D I.P.C., which is not permissible. It is also evident that co- accused has already been granted bail. In view 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, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed. 6. Impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 474 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 383 of 2017, under Sections 323, 376D, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Dhaurahra, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. 7. Let appellant, Anoop Kumar Lodh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 VKS Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench