Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30354 Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8228 of 2024 Appellant :- Bhojpal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Bhojpal-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 26.7.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Budaun, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Special Sessions Trial No. 52 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 364, 302, 201, 147 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun has been rejected. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that initially the concession of regular bail was extended to the appellant vide order dated 6.12.2013 (Annexure No.2) and he continued to appear before the trial court till 30th March, 2018. Learned counsel has further argued that thereafter the appellant went to the State of Punjab to earn his livelihood, and in this regard, he had given an information to the counsel representing him before the trial court, but subsequently, the non bailable warrants were issued by the trial court against the appellant and finally he was arrested on 15.7.2024. Learned counsel submits that since then the appellant is in custody and his absence before the trial court too was bona fide, therefore, he prays that the appellant be released on regular bail. During the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by learned counsel for appellant that the prosecution has examined all its witnesses and the case is at the stage of recording explanation of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering his submissions, this Court finds that the concession of regular bail initially granted to the appellant was misused by him and he disengaged himself with the trial proceedings for a long period of six years. The argument that he had given an information to his counsel representing him before the trial court is also without any force, as at the time of furnishing the bail bonds it was undertaken by the appellant-accused that he would continue to appear before the trial court. Even if, the appellant had gone to another State for his livelihood, it was imperative for him to seek permission of the court, but concededly, no such application was moved. Thus, the trial court was left with no option but to secure the presence of the accused by issuing non bailable warrants, which have been executed. Since, the trial has reached at the last stage, therefore, considering the background as well as seriousness of the offence, particularly the conduct of the appellant this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of regular bail to the appellant. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 P.S.Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad