High Court · 2025

3. Heard Shri Brajesh Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The instant appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') has been preferred against the order dated

05.03.2025 whereby the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sant Kabir Nagar has rejected the bail application of the appellant.

5. Prayer has been made to allow the appeal and release the appellant on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No.217 of 2024 (Sessions Case No.465 of 2024), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 316, 452, 427, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Act, Police Station Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar

6. Apart from various other submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it is urged that F.I.R. was lodged against three persons raising common allegations. The two accused persons namely Chauthi and Guddu have been already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 06.02.2025, which reads as under:- "1. On oral prayer learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to add Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act in the prayer clause of the appeal during course of the day.

2. Supplementary affidavit annexing therewith bail rejection order dated 30.1.2025 filed today is taken on record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants - Chauthi and Ramesh Kahar @ Guddu Kahar with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 28.6.2024 and 30.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sant Kabir Nagar and to release the appellants on bail in case crime no. 217 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 316, 427, 452, 34 IPC, Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. No offence, as alleged, has been committed by the present appellants. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellants is in jail since 15.6.2024. The Court concerned while passing the impugned orders did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned orders rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured persons belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders.

7. 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.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. The impugned orders suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are set-aside.

10. Let the aforesaid appellants involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing each 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v). The appellants 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court."

7. The appellant has been denied bail by the court below. On perusal of record, the Court finds that common allegations were levelled against all the three accused persons and their role in the alleged incident is same.

8. A clear case of parity stands made out at this stage.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set aside.

10. Let the appellant-Bablu @ Babval Kahar involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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. 11 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 :- 21.5.2025 Jyotsana JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Shri Brajesh Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The instant appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') has been preferred against the order dated

05.03.2025 whereby the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sant Kabir Nagar has rejected the bail application of the appellant.

5. Prayer has been made to allow the appeal and release the appellant on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No.217 of 2024 (Sessions Case No.465 of 2024), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 316, 452, 427, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Act, Police Station Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar

6. Apart from various other submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it is urged that F.I.R. was lodged against three persons raising common allegations. The two accused persons namely Chauthi and Guddu have been already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 06.02.2025, which reads as under:- "1. On oral prayer learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to add Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act in the prayer clause of the appeal during course of the day.

2. Supplementary affidavit annexing therewith bail rejection order dated 30.1.2025 filed today is taken on record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants - Chauthi and Ramesh Kahar @ Guddu Kahar with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 28.6.2024 and 30.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sant Kabir Nagar and to release the appellants on bail in case crime no. 217 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 316, 427, 452, 34 IPC, Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. No offence, as alleged, has been committed by the present appellants. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellants is in jail since 15.6.2024. The Court concerned while passing the impugned orders did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned orders rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured persons belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders.

7. 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.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. The impugned orders suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are set-aside.

10. Let the aforesaid appellants involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing each 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v). The appellants 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court."

7. The appellant has been denied bail by the court below. On perusal of record, the Court finds that common allegations were levelled against all the three accused persons and their role in the alleged incident is same.

8. A clear case of parity stands made out at this stage.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set aside.

10. Let the appellant-Bablu @ Babval Kahar involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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. 11 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 :- 21.5.2025 Jyotsana JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad