Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34386 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7926 of 2024 Appellant :- Nahna @ Yunus Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamalendra Kumar Maurya,Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Akhileshwar Pratap Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, 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 - Nahna @ Yunus with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra in Bail Application No. 3623 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(da), 3 (1)(dha), 3 (2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kheragarh, District- Agra. 3. In a sudden fight injury was caused to injured Suraj, son of the informant, Lakhan and Vishnu, the other family members of the informant and they were bitterly assaulted by the named accused persons Dilraj, Nanhe and other named accused persons. Suraj and Vishnu sustained serious injuries. FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted and charges have been framed against all the accused persons including the present appellant. 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 it is a case where the accused side also sustained injuries when the persons from the informant side assaulted upon them. It is also submitted that in this matter an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved from the accused side but since both the parties are residing in the same village some compromise took place between them and the said applicant was not pressed from the accused side. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness on record although injuries have been found in the medical examination of both the injured persons but as a matter of fact no fracture was found in the head injury of injured Vishnu. The present appellant has been assigned role of causing injury to Vishnu with the aid of iron rod. 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 10.6.2024. 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 and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 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 5.7.2024 but however it was fairly conceded before this Court that now the parties had entered into a compromise. 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, 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 :- 10.3.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad