HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8628 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, Sri Pramod Tripathi, holding brief of Ms. Sakshi Jaiswal, learned counsel for the informant and 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 has been preferred by the appellant - Akhilesh Sharma with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly Bail Application No. 3678/2025 (Akhilesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 414/2025 under Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and 3(2)(V), 3(1)/(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act 1989, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the victim, making allegation that she was duped by the appellant on the pretext of false marriage. It was submitted that the victim is a married lady and was also involved in the murder of her ex-husband. He has referred to Case Crime No. 371 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, where the said FIR was lodged by one Manoj Gandhi against the informant. Even informant approached this Court to seek bail in the said case and was granted bail vide order dated 7.2.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2721 of 2023 (Kajal Sharma vs. State of U.P.). 5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the statement of the victim recorded by the I.O. is sufficient to indicate the complicity of the appellant. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bachan Singh, Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sakshi Jaiswal Akhilesh Sharma .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Akhilesh Sharma involved in Case Crime No. 414/2025 under Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and 3(2)(V), 3(1)/(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act 1989, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, 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 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 court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 8, 2025 Ujjawal CRLA No. 8628 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad