HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2711 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Pratapgarh in anticipatory bail application No. 2594 of 205 (Uma Kant Chaubey Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2025 under Sections 108, 352, 351(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kanhi, District Pratapgarh rejecting the application of the appellant/applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the averments made in the F.I.R, no case against the applicant is made out. He next submits that the entire prosecution story is highly improbable and unbelievable. Infact, the victim was subjected to torture by her parents due to which she committed suicide by hanging herself. 5. He submits that after one day of the alleged incident, i.e. on 05.06.2025, the informant had lodged this false and frivolous F.I.R against the appellant and other persons. He also submits that there is no content in the F.I.R which may constitute an offence under S.C/S.T Act and, therefore, the findings given by the court below is erroneous and not in consonance with the law. 6. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and in case of being enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Satish Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ajeet Kumar, Deepak Kumar Umakant Chaubey @ Umakant .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing the respondent/opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that on the perusal of the F.I.R, coupled with the statement of informant and other witnesses, it transpires that the appellant/applicant, alongwith other co-accused persons came to the house of the informant and abused the informant with casteist slur and threatened and intimidated her. 8. It is next submitted that in view of the prevailing social conditions, the apprehensions are likely to intimidate the victims. They further submit that as per the the provision of Section 18 of the S.C/S.T Act, the applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C is expressly excluded. They next submitted that the learned trial court, after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, passed the impugned order, which is not erroneous and does not call for any interference and if the appellant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he shall influence the witnesses. 9. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that initially the F.I.R was registered against the appellant and other accused persons for the offence under Section 103(1) and other sections of the I.P.C and S.C/S.T Act, wherein the applicant has been named and it is specifically mentioned that the applicant and the co- accused had abused the deceased and threatened the informant that they will not spare her, as also the statement given by the informant, wherein it is stated that on 04.06.2025, at about 7 A.M, the applicant/appellant, alongwith other accused persons, came into her house and abused her and the deceased with casteist slur, and threatened her that they will not spare her. 10. 10. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances, gravity of the offences and applicability of the provision of Section 18 of the S.C/S.T Act, no case for anticipatory bail is made out and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is in consonance with the law and there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.07.2025, hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. October 28, 2025 DiVYa CRLA No. 2711 of 2025 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench