HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5457 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. List revised. None appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. 2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State. 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 - Neeldhar Dwivedi with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.4.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) whereby the bail applicaiton No. 373 of 2024 of the appellant filed in Case Crime No. 144 of 2021, under Sections 342, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) V of SC/ST Act, police station Bara, district Prayagraj has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, being the Gram Pradhan, has been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant, who lodged the F.I.R. through an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The said F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about three months. It is further submitted that a bald allegation has been made against Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Brij Gopal, Devashish Tripathi, Yogesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ravindra Sonker Neeldhar Dwivedi .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) the appellant regarding taking an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the informant for allotting a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, which is wholly baseless and without any substance. The appellant is in jail since 11.09.2022. Hence, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer . 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, severity of punishment, 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. 9. Let the appellant Neeldhar Dwivedi 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 CRLA No. 5457 of 2024 2 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. 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 14, 2025 Sumaira CRLA No. 5457 of 2024 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad