Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137027 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4532 of 2025 Appellant :- Mohd. Riyaz Alias Golu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Singh,Virendra Singh Parmar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Heard Mr Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.4.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Prayagraj in Third Bail Application No. 1197 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 140 of 2022, under Sections 364, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. George Town, District Prayagraj. 3. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today annexing therewith the statement of P.W.-3 Eye witness, namely Minakshi, which is taken on record. 4. The ground taken in the present bail application after rejection of the third bail application from the Special Court is that three prosecution witnesses have been examined in the matter and trial has yet not been concluded till date despite order dated 20.5.2024 passed by this court while rejecting the Criminal Appeal No. 2928 of 2024 (Mohd Riyaz @ Golu Vs State of UP and another) wherein it was directed that the trial shall be concluded within a period of six months. It is further submitted that perusal of the statement of the P.W.-3 would show that the victim and the appellant both were in relationship and at the time of incident the victim went with the appellant of her own consent. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant- applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 21.04.2022. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. 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. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, 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. 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Mohd. Riyaz Alias Golu, involved in the 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 cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court. 11. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 RavindraKSingh Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad