Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161797 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3870 of 2025 Appellant :- Sahil Rajpoot And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot,Lok Nath Shukla,Raj Kumar Tiwari,Sant Ram Sharma,Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Agrawal 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 appellants Sahil Rajpoot And Prince Rajpoot to set aside the order dated 25.03.2025 and to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2025, under sections 140(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Girwan, District Banda. 3. Heard Sri Sant Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record. 4. According to the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged on 28.02.2025 in respect of the incident which had taken place on the same day stating therein that on the call of Lokesh, who is named in the FIR along with two other unknown persons, he went to the place of incident for taking some money where from the appellant and two unknown persons had taken away his brother-in-law on his swift desire car and his whereabouts is not known to the informant. 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 01.03.2025. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellants or at their pointing out and there is material contradiction in the statement of first informant and FIR version. The appellants have no criminal history. 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 appellants 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 appellants and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. 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 appellants Sahil Rajpoot And Prince Rajpoot 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants 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 appellants 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. CRLA No. 3870 of 2025 2 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 :- 11.9.2025 RPD CRLA No. 3870 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad