HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7148 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. 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 21.7.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 277/2025, under Sections 75, 87, 137(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 3(2)(V), 3(2)5(क) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 3/5(i) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act at Police Station Phoolpur, District Ganga Nagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that daughter of the informant aged about 15 years alongwith her friend, who is also a minor girl, went to Kerala in a train. As both of them were not having any valid tickets, they were apprehended by the T.T. and were sent to the police. Police finding them minor sent them to CWC. Thereafter, when CWC informed the informant regarding her daughter being present at Kerala, she was taken from Kerala back to her home. However, later on, a story Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mohammad Rashid, Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mohd. Tarique Alias Shoaib Alias Kaif .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) was developed by the informant that her daughter alongwith her friend was dropped by the present appellant at Railway Station Prayagraj. No other role except dropping the victim and her friend at Railway Station has been assigned to the appellant. 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 appellant is entitled to bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that when victim was recovered and her statement was recorded by the I.O., she has stated that she alongwith her minor friend was enticed away by the other accused person to accompany her at Kerala. She further alleged that she was lured by the other accused to convert her religion. The entire prosecution evidence suggests that the appellant alongwith other accused persons was involved in kidnapping the minor victim for converting her religion. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to bail. 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-Mohd. Tarique Alias Shoaib Alias Kaif 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. CRLA No. 7148 of 2025 2 (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. 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 15, 2025 SK CRLA No. 7148 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad