Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114296 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6173 of 2025 Appellant :- Ved Prakash Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ved Prakash Singh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 26.6.2025 passed by the Incharge Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur in Bail Application No. 278 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 125 of 2025 under Sections 121(2), 132, 109(1), 352, 351(2), 324(3) of BNS and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gaura Badshahpur, District- Jaunpur. 3. The prosecution has come forward with a story that on 12.6.2025 at about 4.00 pm the present appellant along with his father went to a government office and government documents were torned by them and they also with the intention to kill made throttling upon the informant and also hurled abused by caste related remarks as the informant belongs to SC/ST community and thus they cause hindrance in the official duty of the informant. FIR was lodged on the same date and investigation started which is pending. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that all the allegations made in the FIR are false and frivolous. In the FIR no witness of the occurrence has been mentioned, hence the offence was not committed at a place in public view. 5. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case and it makes the prosecution story highly doubtful as in the opinion of the doctor two injuries were caused by hard and blunt object whereas there is no allegation of use of any hard and blunt object in the commission of the crime, however, the injuries were found simple in nature. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 12.6.2025 having no criminal antecedent. 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 the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 26.6.2025 but however, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the injuries of the injured/ informant were found simple in nature by the doctor. It is also admitted that the no independent witness has been disclosed in the FIR. 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 above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 :- 16.7.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad