The court determined that the essential elements of the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act were absent, warranting the grant of bail to the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Two Supplementary affidavits filed in criminal appeal no. 10255 of 2024 today are taken on record. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today in criminal appeal no. 9774 of 2024 are also taken on record.

2. Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

3. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants Akash and Ramkesh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 2.8.2024 and 4.4.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Siddhrthnagar and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2024, under Sections 379, 436, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pathra Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.

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. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. Appellants are in jail since 9.2.2024 and 21.1.2024. Criminal history of the appellants has been properly explained. The Court concerned while passing the impugned order 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 applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for grant of bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to SC/ST community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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 applications of the appellants. The impugned orders suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to be set-aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed.

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

10. Let the aforesaid appellants involved in 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is 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 fact