HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5949 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 12.03.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah in Case Crime No. 187 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506, 354 Kha IPC and Section 3(2)(V) Ka of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bagwala, District Etah. 3. According to the complainant, the case was registered based on an incident that occurred on 30.06.2022 at around 8 PM. The victim was having food at home when at that time, village residents Sonvir, Ramu, Smt. Priya, Smt. Shyamwati and others entered the house using caste- based slurs and abused him and on resistance they started hitting the victim with kicks and fists as a result of which he sustained injuries and on hearing the noise, people of the vicinity gathered and seeing them all the accused fled from the spot extending threats to kill him in case report of the incident is lodged. It is further alleged that when the complainant went to lodge the report of the incident, Sonvir, Ramu, Bhupendra, Smt. Priya, Smt. Shyamwat, Suresh, Gudda, Pintoo again entered in his house having lathi danda, iron rods and attacked the wife of the complainant and other inmates of his family and hearing the cries, people of the vicinity gathered there and tried to rescue the victim and his family and thereafter Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Raghubir Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Pintu Alias Pratap .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) all the accused fled away from the spot. It is further alleged that on 27.6.2022 at about 7 p.m. when the daughter of the complainant was going for defecation, the accused Sonvir attacked her with ill intentions and hit her chest and also committed obscene acts. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there are eight accused persons and none of them have been assigned any specific role and further out of the eight accused persons seven accused having similar role have been granted bail by the court below. Applicant has not committed any offence. The First Information Report was lodged with malice and does not present the facts clearly. The applicant did not use any caste-based slurs nor was he present at the scene. He has been wrongly named. The applicant/accused has no prior criminal history. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 18.06.2025. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said fact. 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 Pintu Alias Pratap, 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. CRLA No. 5949 of 2025 2 (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. September 19, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 5949 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad