Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4898 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11526 of 2024 Appellant :- Ram Bahadur Lodh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 9.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 153 of 2024 under Sections 376 D, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1) (dha), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Karari, District Kaushambi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. . 3. The prosecution story, as culled out from the record, is that the named accused Shanker Lal took the lady victim to a brick kiln by his vehicle on 5.6.2023 at about 3.00 p.m. and there in the submersible room rape was committed with her by him and one unknown person. The police did not make any help to the victim, hence an application under Section 156(3) CrPC was moved by her and by the order of the Court passed on the said application, F.I.R. was lodged on 30.6.2024 and during investigation name of the present appellant came into light. 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. It is further submitted that it is a no evidence case against the present appellant. Non one has identified him at the time of the occurrence or even subsequently no identification parade of the present appellant has been conducted by the I.O. There are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. The appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that the medico legal report of sexual violence also does not provide any help to the prosecution. 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. Appellant is in jail since 19.8.2024. 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 grant of bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the prosecutrix belonged to SC/ST community. It is also submitted that the police did not help the prosecutrix for lodging of the F.I.R. and that was the reason the F.I.R. was lodged very belatedly on the direction of the Court when the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was moved by her. Since the named accused Shanker Lal was well known to the prosecutrix, he was named in the F.I.R. and the I.O. has collected ample evidence to the effect that after lodging of the F.I.R. named accused Shanker Lal and the present appellant threatened the victim to close the case. Since the unknown accused was known by face to the victim, she identified him when subsequent to the commission of the offence he came to her with co-accused Shanker Lal for threatening. I.O. has collected ample evidence to ensure identification of the present appellant. The prosecutrix is a widow lady and a member of SC/ST community. Rape has been committed with her by deceitful means. There is absolutely no reason for false implication of the appellant by the prosecutrix in this case. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, 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 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. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad