HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8811 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned AGA states that notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal. Copy of the notice provided by the learned AGA be kept on record. 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 with a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.8.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Budaun and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 260 of 2025 u/s 87, 137(2) BNS and Section 3(2)Va of S.C/S.T. (P.A.) Act, PS Wazirganj, District Budaun. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that allegation of abducting the minor daughter of informant has been made against the appellant. When statements of victim was recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, she has stated that she on her freewill had gone with the appellant. She has denied any allegation of abduction and has disclosed her age to be about 18 years. The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. It was submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In such circumstances, the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rakesh Dubey, Shashi Chood Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sohil Alias Shoaib .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) appellant is entitled to bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that version of informant narrated in the first information report cannot be denied on the basis of the statement made by the victim in favour of the appellant. 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. 9. Let the appellant- Sohil Alias Shoaib, involved in the aforesaid case 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. CRLA No. 8811 of 2025 2 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 17, 2025 SK CRLA No. 8811 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad