Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78612 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 628 of 2025 Appellant :- Sonu Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bijay Kumar Srivastava,Santosh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State. 2. According to office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on his behalf to oppose the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is being proceeded on merits. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant - Sonu Yadav with the prayer to set aside the order dated 19.12.2024, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A) Act, Mirzapur in Bail Application no.2275 of 2024 (Sonu Yadav vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime no.233 of 2024, under Sections 74 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Madihan, District - Mirzapur whereby aforesaid bail application has been rejected. 4. The prosecution case has been disclosed in the F.I.R. wherein the present appellant alongwith co-accused Rajesh Kumar was named accused persons and it was alleged that on 4.12.2024 at about 11 P.M., both the named accused persons were eve-teasing with the daughter of the informant aged about 22 years and tried to outrage her modesty but on her shrieks, both the accused persons fled away from the spot. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that against the FIR lodged on 05.12.2024 under Sections 74 B.N.S and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, the appellant is in confinement since 10.12.2024. It is also submitted that there is no criminal history credited in favour of the appellant. There is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. 6. It is also submitted by the appellant that the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Koal, having similar role, has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court by allowing his appeal no.269 of 2025 vide order dated 13.2.2025. The case of the present appellant is not distinguishable, therefore, he may also be released on bail by allowing his appeal. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant but he did not dispute this fact that no criminal history credited to the appellant. 8. I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal, it appears that the learned trial court has not properly considered the facts of the case. Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the learned trial court rejecting the bail application of the appellant. Thus finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside. 10. Let appellant - Sonu Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) 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. (ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law. 12. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application/appeal and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. 13. The criminal appeal is allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad