HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3338 of 2025 Court No. - 83 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-Karunashankar to set aside the order dated 06.01.2025 in Bail Application No.17012 of 2024 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 245 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 333, 352, 351(3), 110, 118 BNS & Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Atarra, District Banda. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record. 4. As per case of prosecution, the husband of the complainant, who is a resident of the village, works at the government ration shop as a grain weighter and he supports his family with the wages he earns from this job. On 09.10.2024, around 10:00 AM, the complainant's husband was called to weigh grain at the shop. After weighing grain for a while, he was summoned by the shopkeeper's elder brother, Ram Milan Yadav, son of Ram Kripal Yadav, and taken to another house. When the complainant's husband arrived, he saw Baburam Yadav, son of Natthu Yadav, and Anil (Baburam's aunt's son), residents of village Aahar, police station Baberu, district Banda, boiling goat meat on a gas stove. The complainant's husband went inside and sat with them. Around 12:00 PM, Karuna Shankar Dixit, son of Balkishun Dixit, and Antim Dixit, son of Jayashankar Dixit, entered the house carrying sticks and they started abusing the complainant's husband with caste-based slurs, saying, "You Chamar, you weigh less grain. Weigh it as we say." The complainant's husband replied that they should speak to the shopkeeper, as he only weighs the grain, and the electronic scale belongs to the shopkeeper. At this, both men began beating him severely with kicks, fists, and sticks. Hearing his screams, the complainant, Baburam, and Anil came forward to intervene. In the commotion, hot water from the meat being boiled on the gas stove was poured onto the complainant's husband, causing him to be severely burned. The two men also misbehaved with the complainant. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ram Raksha Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Karunashankar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2024. As per the injury report and statement of the injured, prima facie no offence under alleged sections is made out against the appellant. The FIR of the incident has been lodged after five days of delay without any plausible explanation. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant. 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-Karunashankar 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 CRLA No. 3338 of 2025 2 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. September 10, 2025 RPD CRLA No. 3338 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad