HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6460 of 2025 Court No. - 83 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-Deepak Singh Chauhan to set aside the order dated 20.06.2025 in IInd Bail Application No. 1019 of 25 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2023, under Sections 302. 201, 506 IPC and section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat.. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh for respondent no.2 and perused the entire record. 4. According to the prosecution case, prior to lodging the FIR, the informant had lodged a missing report on 17.07.2023 stating therein that her husband went without giving information on 16.07.2023, she searched him at all possible places but could not found him. Thereafter, upon search, dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant's house on the next day the FIR has been lodged under the aforesaid sections against the appellant and co-accused Ram Prakash. On the same day, police arrested the co-accused, who confessed their crime and at his pointing out a stick has been recovered. 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 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ved Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharmendra Pratap Singh, G.A. Deepak Singh Chauhan .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 18.07.2023 and is having no criminal history. In the present case there are only 26 prosecution witnesses, but till date the statement of P.W. 1 has not been completed so far. There is no possibility of concluding the trial in near future. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. Appellant is residing at Kanpur Nagar due to treatment of his father whereas the incident took place at the house of appellant situated at Kanpur Dehat. 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-Deepak Singh Chauhan 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, CRLA No. 6460 of 2025 2 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. September 25, 2025 RPD CRLA No. 6460 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad