Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107803 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1878 of 2025 Appellant :- Sani Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ahmad Saeed,M. Asif Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Krishna Gopal Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material available 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 Sani Singh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 10.2.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bareilly in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.252 of 2025 and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.843 of 2024 under Sections 87, 137 (2) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station - Bhojipura, District - Bareilly. 3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 23.11.2024 in the evening at about 5:00 P.M., the minor daughter of the informant was enticed away by the named accused appellant and when she was not traced out, F.I.R. under Sections 87, 137 (2) B.N.S. was lodged on the same day at 22:29 hours. 4. 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 further submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this matter. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. of this case itself reveals the fact that the present appellant did not take away the victim of this case from the lawful guardianship because there was no eyewitness of the same. It is also submitted that when the victim was traced and her statement under section 180 and 183 BNSS was recorded, she has made categorical statement that since she was not pleased with her family members, she herself, on her own free will, left her house on 23.11.2024 in the evening to Bhojipura station and there on her call, the present appellant reached there and both of them went to Himanchal Pradesh. It is also submitted that no sexual assault was made upon her by the present accused appellant nor physical relation was made between the two. It is also submitted that although the victim is said to be a minor girl on the date of occurrence, but from her own statement it is evident that the appellant was not the person who enticed away the victim from her lawful guardianship. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is languishing in jail since 27.11.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to SC/ST community, but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the victim of this case herself left her house with her own free will and appellant was not the person who took her away from her lawful guardianship. 6. 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. 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 and also keeping in view the fact that no sexual offence was committed with the victim of this case by the appellant, 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. 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the appellant - Sani Singh involved in Case Crime No.843 of 2024 under Sections 87, 137 (2) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station - Bhojipura, District - Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 10. 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 :- 7.7.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad