Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141887 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6200 of 2025 Appellant :- Antim Kumar Jain @ Antu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sandip Kumar Shukla 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-Antim Kumar Jain @ Antu to set aside the order dated 19.05.2025 in Bail Application No.815 of 2025 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No.1110 of 2024, under Sections 351(3), 352 BNS, 420 IPC and section 3(1)Da, Dha and & Section 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1, Sri Sandeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and perused the entire record. 4. According to the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged on 13.11.2024 in respect of the incident which was taken place on 23.10.2024 against the appellant stating therein that the informant has not sold his land with the help of his two real brothers, thereafter his two brothers have further sold the land to the appellant. Thereafter both the brothers made pressure to make signature on the sale deed but the informant has denied the same. 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. This case is purely civil in nature. It is also evident from the statement of Dhaniram and Kamlesh that they were having dispute with the informant. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 12.02.2025. 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-Antim Kumar Jain @ Antu 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 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 :- 19.8.2025 RPD Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad