Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144103 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2514 of 2025 Appellant :- Guddu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. In this case notice has already been served upon the informant. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Guddu to set aside the order dated 20.02.2025 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 07 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 351(2), 333 B.N.S. and section 3(2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Bamrauli Katara, District Agra. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record. 4. According to the prosecution case, FIR of the case has been lodged on 14.01.2025 on the day of incident stating therein that the victim living separately aged about 60 years. Whe the victim was sleeping in her house, the appellant came in her house and tired to make physical relation with her. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is stated by learned counsel for the informant that due to some dispute of garbage some hot talk taken between wife and informant, thereafter the victim threatened for dire consequences and at the instance of some villagers who have enmity with the appellant cooked up a false story and lodged the FIR by the victim. There is no external or internal in injury was found on the body of the victim. The appellant is having no criminal history and he is in jail since 15.01.2025. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail had have submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 7. 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. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 10. Let the appellant- Guddu involved in aforesaid case crime number 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. 11. 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 :- 21.8.2025 RPD Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad