Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128726 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6497 of 2025 Appellant :- Anuj Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi 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. As per instruction received by the learned A.G.A. notice upon the informant has been served but none appears on her behalf. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken 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 - Anuj Chaudhary with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 10.7.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bijnor in Bail Application No. 3308 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 2025 under Sections 76, 109(1), 351(2), 352, 352 of BNS. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Najibabad, District- Bijnor. 3. As per prosecution case when the injured/ informant of this case was returning to her house with scooty after finishing her duty, meanwhile two named accused persons came from her behind and attacked upon her and assault was made by the use of lathi and danda and they also made an attempt to outrage her modesty. The injured sustained serious injuries upon her head and other parts of her body. FIR was lodged and the injured was taken to the hospital by ambulance. Investigation in this case is going on. 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 no motive has been assigned to the present appellant to commit the alleged crime in the FIR and also in the statement of the injured herself under Section 180 BNSS, however, in her statement recorded under Section 183 Cr.P.C. she has assigned a false motive against the present appellant that due to the reason of her refusal to marry with the appellant the present occurrence happened. It is also submitted that the injuries caused to the injured/ informant are simple in nature. The instant matter does not cover under Section 109 (1) BNSS. It is further submitted that the appellant has explained the criminal history of one case. 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 7.7.2025. 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. 5. 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 10.07.2025 but however he could not dispute this fact that the injuries sustained by the injured/ informant are simple in nature and in the x-ray no adversity was discovered by the doctor. 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 also considering the nature of injuries, medical reports, incarceration period. 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 9. 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. 10. 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 :- 1.8.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad