Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47273 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9935 of 2025 Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devidayal Tiwari,Jai Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Sri Jairaj, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2024, under Sections 137 (2), 61(2), 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonebhadra. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Sonebhadra, vide order dated 05.03.2025 and the applicant is in jail since 22.12.2024. Before dwelling into the merits of the bail plea, the Court finds that the applicant has been charged with an offence under Section Sections 61(2), 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. The offence under Section SC/ST Act is to be dealt with a Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The SC/ST Act is given overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force. However, the Court finds that bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Sonebhadra. Though the Special Judge (POCSO) Act, who has rejected the bail application of the applicant is also a Special Court but his jurisdiction is confined to deal with the protection of children from offences of Sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. The SC/ST Act postulates trial of offences under the SC/St Act by an exclusive Special Court to be established by the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the official gazette for one or more districts. In districts, where the number of cases under the SC/ST Act are fewer in number the Government is empowered with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the official gazette to specify for such districts, the Court of Sessions to be a Special Court. It is not in dispute that as Special Court to deal with SC/ST cases has been notified and is functioning in the District Sonebhadra. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant inviting the attention to the FIR dated 10.12.2024 giving rise to the instant Case Crime Number submits that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons initially under Section 137(2) of B.N.S. The Sections 61(2), 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, were imposed upon the applicant during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that some of the co- accused have been imposed of offences under the POCSO Act. The case is being dealt with by the Special Court (POCSO) Act. Reliance is also placed upon an order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rinku Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33075 of 2018) dated 11.02.2019, to buttress the point that where offences alleged are both under the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act, it is the Special Court under the POCSO Act which would have jurisdiction. I have gone through the above order dated 11.02.2019 and am in full consonance with the ratio laid down therein by the Coordinate Bench. This Court under such circumstances is inclined to entertain the instant bail plea. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is alleged to have left home on her own accord. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has also not nominated the applicant. All allegations have been levelled against co-accused Sandeep son of Mahindra and Sonu son of Sachchidanand Pandey (co-accused). The incident is alleged to have taken place on 28.11.2024 an FIR was lodged only on 10.12.2024 without there being any explanation. The applicant has not committed any offence. Charge-sheet against the applicant has been filed on 07.01.2025 and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly, prayer for bail has been prayed for. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail, but could not dispute the above submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant. Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima-facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Ankit Kumar Pandey @ Sonu Pandey, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad