Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115470 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1107 of 2025 Appellant :- Mahatam Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- R S Dubey,Savita Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State. 2. As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant - Mahatam Yadav with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Addl. Session Judge / Special Judge (Anti Corruptoin), Court No.2, Gorakhpur and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.0513 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 121(1), 132, 131, 126(2), 310(2), 109 B.N.S., Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3 (2) (5) SC /ST Act, Police Station - Sikariganj, District - Gorakhpur. 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. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this case. It is also submitted that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the appellant nor on his pointing out. It is also submitted that the co-accused Ranjan, Vinay and Neeraj, having identical role, have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.6.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1460 of 2025. The role of the present appellant is not distinguishable from the role of co-accused who have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to bail. 5. It is further submitted that the court concerned 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. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is also submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained by way of supplementary affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 25.11.2024. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer. 7. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 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 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the appellant Mahatam Yadav involved in Case Crime No.0513 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 121(1), 132, 131, 126(2), 310(2), 109 B.N.S., Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3 (2) (5) SC /ST Act, Police Station - Sikariganj, District - Gorakhpur, 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. 11. 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 :- 15.7.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad