HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4187 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-Sonu Nishad to set aside the order dated 06.01.2025 in Bail Application No. 15 of 25 and to release him on bail in S.S.T. No. 587 of 2024 arising out of case crime No. 449 of 2024, under sections 376, 506 IPC an section 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5A), 3(2)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar. 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, the incident occurred on 12.07.2024 but its FIR has been lodged on 27.07.2024 by the victim herself stating therein that the appellant has enticed her away and made physical relation on the assurance that the appellant solemnize marriage with her from the last eight years. The victim is working beauty parlor work at Gorakhpur. After some time the appellant stated the victim that he is going to his native place, and he perform the marriage with another girl. 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. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anirudh Singh, Indrakesh Kumar Sharma, Tarun Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amaresh Yadava, G.A. Sonu Nishad .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 05.08.2024 and is having no criminal history. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that victim herself stated in FIR that she remained with the appellant for the last eight years, itself shows that victim is consenting party. The FIR of the incident has been lodged after 15 days of the incident when the appellant has performed the marriage. As per medical examination report, no injury found on the body of the victim. In the present case there thirteen witnesses, but only one witness has been examined till date and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future. 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-Sonu Nishad 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 CRLA No. 4187 of 2025 2 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. September 11, 2025 RPD CRLA No. 4187 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad