Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116104 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8917 of 2024 Appellant :- Pramod Alias Pappulal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Hinchh Lal Pandey,Preetika Pandey,Rajnish Kumar,Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Pratap Singh,G.A.,Praveen Kumar Singh Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 13.08.2024, passed by the Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Firozabad in Bail Application no. 2820 of 2024 (Pramod @ Pappulal Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime no. 321 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 108, 127(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad whereby aforesaid bail application has been rejected and further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the said case. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that against the FIR lodged on 11.07.2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 108, 127(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2024. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for appellant next submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident while the appellant is having no concern with the same. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for appellant that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant. The appellant claims to be cooperative in the investigation. In sofar as offence under Section SC/ST is concerned, learned counsel for appellant has stated that from perusal of all the records, no offence under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. It is also submitted that there is no criminal history of the appellant and there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant but they could not dispute the aforesaid fact. 5. 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 Court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below 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 as well as no criminal record of the appellant, 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. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 rejecting the bail of the appellant, is set aside. 7. Let appellant, Pramod Alias Pappulal, 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad