HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6616 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.01 of 2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.07.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Ballia in Bail Application No.1225 of 2025 in Session Case No.647 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.157 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)r, 3(1)s, 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, the learned AGA for the State- respondent no.1, Mr. Shashi Ranjan Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the entire record. 3. Prosecution story is that on fateful day, when the informant was going from Alavalpur to his home and while he was passing his e-rickshaw on the road in frond of Barmbaba's place near his village, the accused persons while using abusive language started beating, as a result of which, he got fractured and sustained grievous injury in his eye, leg. It is further alleged that the accused persons have also given threat to kill him. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. The appellants have not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Further submission is that the real fact is that the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the informant Sanju Devi is sitting Pradhan and mother of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bhaiya Ghanshyam Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shashi Ranjan Srivastava Vishal Rai And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) appellant no.1 Shobha Rani contested the election against Sanju Devi in the year 2021 and in the aforesaid election Sanju Devi elected as Pradhan and mother of appellant no.1 defeated the election since then the informant feeling enmity with the appellants and their family. Further submission is that earlier a complaint was given by the appellants regarding illegal encroachment over gram sabha land to District Magistrate, who conducted enuiry and directed to lodge the FIR against the brother of informant being Case Crime No.114 of 2023, under Section 447 IPC and 3(2)(A) of Prevention to Damage to Public Property Act, due to this reason, the informant family feeling enmity with the appellants and lodged a false and fabricated FIR against the appellants. Only general allegations have been levelled. No specific role assigned. As per injury report, all injuries found simple in nature. Further submission is that essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Trial has not been started as yet and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial, hence, the appellants may be enlarged on bail. Appellants are languishing in jail since 17.07.2025 having no previous criminal history. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellants. 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, role assigned to the present appellants and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. 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 appellants is hereby set-aside. 9. Let the appellants-Vishal Rai, Dhananjay Kumar Rai @ Bittu Rai, Aneesh Rai @ Anjeet Rai and Jitendra Kumar Rai @ Pankaj Rai, CRLA No. 6616 of 2025 2 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v) The appellants 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. September 4, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 6616 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad