Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86470 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11133 of 2024 Appellant :- Sandeep Kumar Nishad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shweta Nishad,Vivek Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Himanshu Singh Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mathura in Bail Application No. 3092 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2024, under Sections 323, 376, 384 I.P.C. and 67 IT Act and 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station-Chhata, District Mathura. 3. On 03.04.2025, taking note of the fact that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 had turned hostile, this Court called for a report from the trial court as to what action has been taken against P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mathura has sent report dated 23.04.2025 mentioning that a complaint case under Section 379(1)(b) of BNSS read with Section 215 of BNSS has been registered. Apart from this, a letter has also been sent to the District Magistrate to the effect that monetary relief granted to the victim be recovered. 5. In view of the above, the Court proceeds to consider the appeal on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation of entering into physical relationship was levelled against the appellant but the first information report was not lodged by the alleged victim rather by her sister. 7. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards annexures to the supplementary affidavit, which are copies of the statements of P.W.-I and P.W.-2 respectively. The informant and the alleged victim therein both have maintained a consistent stand regarding commission of "no offence" by the appellant. Surprisingly, the victim had denied to even identify the appellant and as regards electronic evidence, the stand is that no photographs were ever made viral nor videography has been done. P.W.-1 also denied even giving statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police. 8. Considering the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who have turned hostile, and the fact that the appellant is in jail since 25.05.2024 and, there being no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial court proceedings, the Court finds it a fit case for grant of bail allowing the appeal. 9. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.08.2024, described in 2nd paragraph of this order is set aside. 10. Let the applicant-Sandeep Kumar Nishad involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (iv) The applicant 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 applicant 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. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution/informant shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 12. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the instant appeal and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Pkb/ Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad