Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34435 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10248 of 2024 Appellant :- Shrikant Patel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pusp Raj Singh,Ravi Kant Vishwakarma,Vandana Singh Parmar 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 has been preferred by the appellant - Shrikant Patel with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.9.2023 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj in Second Bail Application No. 4488 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 284 of 2024 under Sections 376 (2) n, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5), 3(1)(da) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Meja, District- Prayagraj. 3. The prosecution come forward with a specific allegation that for about 4 years the present appellant had been developed physical relations with the victim lady on the false pretext of marriage, however, later on victim was married with Mr. Navin Kumar but the present appellant disclosed the relationship between him and the victim to the husband of the prosecutrix resulting into a separation between the husband and wife. FIR was lodged and subsequently charge sheet was submitted as disclosed in the supplementary affidavit. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex. It is also submitted that no false assurance of marriage was ever given by the appellant to the victim of this case. The physical relations made and developed between the two always took place with the consent and free will of the victim herself. It is also submitted that he had absolutely no role in the story of separation between the lady victim and her husband. It is also submitted that the accused appellant is having one solitary case against him, which has been explained. 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 is in jail since 26.5.2024. 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 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 23.9.2023. It is further submitted that the present appellant had developed a relationship with the lady victim only to fulfill his lust on the false pretext of marriage but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the relationship between the two developed with the free consent of the victim. 6. The C.O, Meja, Prayagraj, Ravi Kumar Gupta, is present before the Court and he furnished his compliance affidavit wherein it is stated that the previous I.O. made an attempt to record the statement of the husband of the victim before submission of the charge sheet but he flatly refused to give any statement to the police on the plea that he had no relationship with his wife. 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, age of the duo, 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 10. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 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. 12. Personal appearance of the I.O. is exempted until ordered otherwise. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad