Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40682 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1154 of 2025 Appellant :- Abhay Pratap Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jalaj Kumar Tripathi,M. Asif Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raja Ullah Khan Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the copy of the statement of the victim and the charge-sheet is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Abhay Pratap with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bareilly and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.789 of 2024 under Sections 69, 109, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly. 3. 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. 4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the appellant, who claims to be the husband of the victim, alongwith his friend Monu made an assault upon the victim, the sister of the informant, with the aid of knife and also tried to throttle her with the aid of rope in the Car and subsequently the injured victim anyhow managed to escape from the clutches of the accused persons. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that for the last six years, the appellant was making physical abuse and illicit relations with the victim on the false pretext of marriage. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted. 5. 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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the present appellant and the injured of this case happen to be the husband and wife and there was a normal dispute between the two in the car. The nature of injuries sustained by the injured does not take this case within the purview of section 109 B.N.S. It is also submitted that the doctor in the medical examination of the injured has found multiple soft tissue injuries on forearm, face, neck and forehead and none of the injuries has been found by the doctor which was grievous in nature or dangerous to life. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation on the part of the prosecution. It is also submitted that now the matter has been settled between the parties and they are ready to live together as husband and wife with peace and harmony. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 6.11.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal, however, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 fairly conceded before the Court and made a statement at Bar that both the parties have compromised the matter and since they are husband and wife, they want to live together peacefully and happily. 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 and the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, 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 Abhay Pratap involved in case crime no.789 of 2024 under Sections 69, 109, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(2) (va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly, 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 :- 18.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad