Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35052 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4831 of 2024 Appellant :- Anuj Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prem Narayan Rai,Ram Pyare Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant-Anuj Kumar Yadav against the bail rejection order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mirzapur in Bail Application No. 935 of 2024. 3. This is the second appeal on behalf of the accused-appellant- Anuj Kumar Yadav. First appeal of the accused-appellant was rejected on 31.10.2023 by the Hon'ble Mr. Mayank Kumar Jain,J (as his lordship then was). 4. There is an allegation against the applicant that on 10.11.2022 at around 4.00 pm when the informant was returning from her college the applicant who was ambushed, dragged the informant. He hit with his leg and shoes and made her fell down and committed indecent activities. The applicant torn her cloths and attempted to commit rape with her. On raising alarm two persons came there, the appellant ran away. When the prosecutrix along with her brother went to make a complaint to the house of the applicant she was insulted with caste related remarks and was also threatened to life. Her brother was attacked with Hasiya and he sustained injuries. 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The sole ground taken in the second appeal is that at the time of hearing the first appeal chargesheet was not submitted and the said appeal was moved under sections 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 294, 323, 511, 376, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha) and 3(2)(V-a) of SC/ST Act. It is further submitted that during the investigation the Investigating Officer of this case got absolutely no evidence for the offence under section 376 IPC and that is why the charge-sheet was submitted under sections 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 294, 323, 504, 506, of IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha) and 3(2)(a) of SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that no evidence of committing rape with the prosecutrix has been found by the Investigating Officer and the offences for which the appellant is charge-sheeted are punishable with an imprisonment of seven years excluding the offence under section SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 02.08.2023 having no criminal history and as such, he is entitled for bail. 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. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the bail application but however, could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that neither the charge-sheet under section 376 IPC has been submitted nor the court has taken cognizance against the appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 19.04.2024. 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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court 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 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- Anuj Kumar Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 218 of 2022, under Sections 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 294, 323, 504, 506, of IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(a) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Vindhyanchal, District Mirzapur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 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. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad