The court held that a denial of bail must be supported by substantive evidence, and without such evidence, particularly under the SC/ST Act, bail should not be denied.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

1. In this case notice has already been served upon the informant and also counter affidavit and supplementary affidavits have been filed.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Balwant Pandey to set aside the order dated 12.05.2025 in Bail Application No. 686 of 25 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2025, under Sections 191 (2), 191(3), 190, 115(2) 117(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1), 109 BNS & Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Mahesh Kumar Shukla for respondent no. 2 and perused the entire record.

4. According to the prosecution case, the FIR of the incident has been lodged on the same day stating therein that when the informant was returning from his field, on the way the accused appellant met him and assaulted him and there persons. There is delayed FIR of 10 hours and no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the appellant.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 26.03.2025. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that it is a cross case, from both the sides FIRs have been registered and both the sides have sustained injuries. No weapon has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. The appellant has no criminal history. the sward has been shown in the hands of one accused Gaurav Tiwari. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail had have submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

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, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, 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 of the appellant. 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.

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

10. Let the appellant-Balwant Pandey involved in 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 th