HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4058 of 2026 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Upendra Kumar Pushkar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant and Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Sukha Singh, with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 01.4.2026 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Aligarh in Bail Application No. 1120 of 2026, Sukha Singh vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 165 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was granted bail vide order dated 03.03.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.6342 of 2019 passed by other Bench of this Court. The said order reads as under:- "Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.9.2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh in Case Crime No. 165 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is bonafide purchaser of the land in dispute and he has nothing to do with the conspiracy. It is further submitted that the land in dispute was sold out by Amar Singh against whom no F.I.R. has been lodged. Apart from that, he himself belongs to scheduled caste which is not denied by learned A.G.A. in his counter affidavit. It is next submitted that from the facts Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Upendra Kumar Pushkar Sukha Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) of the case, no case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant is languishing in jail since 16.09.2019 and he has no criminal history except the present case to his credit. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact. 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. 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 Court below 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 liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.9.2019 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Let the appellant Sukha Singh involved in Case Crime No. 165 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh 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. 1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. 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. 5. 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court." 5. It is submitted that subsequently charge in the matter was framed on 17.11.2021 by the court concerned and then from 05.5.2022 the appellant defaulted in appearing before the trial court concerned and thus non- bailable warrants were issued against him. While placing para- 16 of the affidavit it is submitted that the appellant went back to his native State Punjab for taking care of his wife and due to poor health of his wife and lack of other family members, he started earning his livelihood there and thus was unable to appear before the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant assures that the appellant shall now not commit any default in the present matter before the trial court even on a single date. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 24 of the appeal and is in jail since 27.02.2026. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and State opposed the appeal and prayer for bail. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the CRLA No. 4058 of 2026 2 records, it is evident that the present appeal with the prayer for bail is on the ground that the appellant had defaulted to the bail granted earlier to him vide order dated 03.3.2020. The appellant is stated to be permanent resident of Aligarh and at present stated to be residing in Amritsar, Punjab. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is provided that the appellant- Sukha Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (out of which one surety should be the family member of the appellant and the other surety should be a local person since the appellant is stated to be permanent resident of Aligarh) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The appellant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS/82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS/174-A I.P.C. (v) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 251 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS/229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant. CRLA No. 4058 of 2026 3 (vii) It is provided that he shall only leave the territorial jurisdiction of District Aligarh after due permission from the trial court concerned. 9. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison. 10. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. 11. The impugned order dated 01.4.2026 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Aligarh is hereby set aside. 12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. September 18, 2026 Naresh CRLA No. 4058 of 2026 4 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad