HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4411 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. The office report dated 17.07.2025 reveals that opposite party no.2 has been personally served. Opposite party no.2 has not appeared despite sufficiency of service, hence, the Court is constraint to hear the appeal in absence of opposite party no.2. 2. This Court by order dated 23.08.2025 has directed A.G.A. to file counter affidavit. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit upon serving the copy on other side. Sri Amrit Shanker Dubey, learned counsel has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply to the same. The same is taken on record. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant-Satyapal with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Etawah in Bail Application No. 614 of 2025 (Satyapal Versus State of U.P.) in Case Crime No.05 of 2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)v and 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Vaidpura, District Etawah. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that opposite party no.2 has lodged the F.I.R. against three accused persons. The two other co-accused were HDFC Bank employees, whereas the charge-sheet is submitted only against appellant. The incident is of year 2015 for which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved in the year 2023. The accused-appellant was tenant of opposite party no.2 and there Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Satyapal .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) is an allegation that on 15.11.2015 the accused has accompanied opposite party no.2 to the bank for depositing Rs.40 lakhs, but when he checked his account in the year 2023, he did not find the deposit of Rs.40 lakhs in his account, as such the application has been moved and the F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of order passed while disposing of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. The money has been transacted from account of informant. The appellant has no role in the matter and has been falsely implicated. The Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidences available on record in right perspective and erred in ignoring the same. It is lastly submitted 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 AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that report is delayed because initially the informant/opposite party no.2 tried to lodge the F.I.R. which has not been registered, thereafter he suffered illness. On 25.08.2023, he came to know about transactions and found that the money has surreptitiously been withdrawn by the appellant, he has moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The statement of Bank Manager as well as employees of the bank has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there being ample evidence against accused, the police has charge-sheeted him. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and appellant may be denied bail. 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. On the face of record it is reflected that the F.I.R. has been registered on the basis of application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after lapse of nearly eight years. There is transaction from and in the account of opposite party no.2, as per record which is collected during investigation. The accused-appellant is in jail since 10.02.2025. None appeared for the opposite party no.2 to counter the facts alleged in bail application. The charge-sheet is submitted. 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. The applicant-appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. CRLA No. 4411 of 2025 2 9. Let the appellant-Satyapal involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned subject to condition that the accused-appellant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and speedy disposal. October 6, 2025 MN/- CRLA No. 4411 of 2025 3 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad