Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27198 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10715 of 2024 Appellant :- Sandeep Baghel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Sandeep Baghel against the bail rejection order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah in Case Crime No. 133 of 2024, under Sections 64, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bagwala, District- Etah. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. 4. The victim daughter of the informant was going to take some medicine on 20.07.2024 at about 12:00 noon the present accused/appellant took her in a field and forcefully committed rape against her and also threatened for dire consequences. In the F.I.R. it is also mentioned that prior to the said incident the victim was molested by the present accused/appellant at some early occasions. F.I.R. was lodged. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted in this matter. 5. 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 completely missing in this case. It is further submitted that from perusal of material on record no offence is made out against the present accused/appellant. It is also submitted that since there are some dispute between the present appellant and father of the victim and that is why he was falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is further submitted that although in the F.I.R. the victim has been shown minor girl but the ossification test explains that she was major at the time of incident. It is also submitted that F.S.L. report also does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is next submitted that the present accused/appellant is having no criminal history to his credit. 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 02.08.2024. 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. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application and it has been submitted that there was no reason for the informant to falsely implicate the accused/appellant. It is also submitted that victim of this case is an unmarried girl. It is also submitted that in her statement under section 180 BNSS the victim categorically stated that rape was committed with her by the present accused-appellant. It is a case of rape against the victim who belongs to a weaker section of society and member of SC/ST community and rape has been committed against her in a day light at public place. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 12.09.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regarding 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 appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad