Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50735 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10384 of 2024 Appellant :- Smt Seema Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Giri Ram Rawat,Indra Deo Mishra,Shri Ram (Rawat) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Smt Seema with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.9.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Firozabad. 3. The prosecution case as culled out from the FIR is that when the lady victim of this case had a quarrel with her husband she came to Shikohabad from district Firozabad and there one unknown person took her to the house of Seema on 5.8.2024 at about 12 noon and rape was committed to her by four unknown persons at different times. FIR was lodged and the victim was medically examined. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, she has not committed the alleged offence but she has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against her. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is highly suspicious and not plausible. It is not natural at all that one Manoj, who was absolutely unknown for the victim, took her to the house of Smt. Seema, the present appellant, and the victim without having any acquaintance with the said Manoj agreed to go with him to the house of the appellant Smt. Seema. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of victim herself recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. It is also submitted that the medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution version and the doctor who medically examined the victim has opined that no sexual assault has been committed with the victim. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show as to how the appellant Smt. Seema was known to the victim of this case. The trial Court 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. Appellant Smt. Seema is in jail since 06.08.2024. It is next submitted that the appellant is lady and no offence under Section 64 B.N.S. is made out against her. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is lastly submitted that co-accused Eliyas, Bhuvresh, Sher Nabi have been granted by bail by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 9428 of 2024. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the role of the present appellant was to shelter in her house to the main accused persons in committing rape upon the victim lady. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.9.2024. 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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court 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 to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Smt. Seema involved in Case Crime No. 473 of 2024 under Sections 64, 127 (1), 351 (2), 61(2) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Shikohabad, District- Firozabad 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. (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 she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she 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 her 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 :- 8.4.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad