Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48795 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9697 of 2024 Appellant :- Sushil Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nimesh Kumar Shukla,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Sushil Singh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur in Case Crime No. 259 of 2024, under Sections 64, 115(2), 127(2), 351(2) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Baksha, District Jaunpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record. None present for the opposite party no. 2 even in revised call. 3. The prosecution story as culled out in the F.I.R. is that on 03.08.2024 at about 9.00 P.M. when the victim had gone in the field to ease herself, she was taken by the accused appellant to his house after closing his mouth and rape was committed upon her by the appellant. However, F.I.R. was lodged and charge sheet has been submitted. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is absolutely false and not plausible. There are material contradictions in the facts narrated in the F.I.R. and statement of the victim herself recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged one week after the incident without any plausible explanation of delay. It is next submitted that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S. it is stated that family members were informed by her when she was detained by the appellant but they did not go to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. It is also submitted that medical report does not support the prosecution story. 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 also submitted that the accused appellant is in jail since 11.08.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and it has been argued that it is a case of rape committed upon the victim and since the family members of the victim were not informed about the incident by the victim which caused delay in lodging of the F.I.R. 6. 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. 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, role of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Sushil Singh 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. 10. 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 :- 5.4.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad