Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28663 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11364 of 2024 Appellant :- Vikash Maruya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today 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 - Vikash Maruya with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 341 of 2024 under Sections 366, 376, 494 IPC, Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the informant / prosecutrix was married with one Ajit Kumar on 17.6.2016 but she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of additional dowry. Meanwhile, she also gave birth a daughter. On account of non-fulfillment of the additional dowry, she was sold to the present appellant for Rs. 3,00,000/- by her husband Ajit Kumar and the present appellant used to make forcible physical relations with her and she was threatened to further sell to any other person. However, on 25.4.2022 anyhow she rescued and came to her house. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now charge sheet has been submitted. 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. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution story is not plausible and natural. It is also submitted that according to the F.I.R. the incident occurred between 18.6.2016 to 25.4.2022 but surprisingly F.I.R. was lodged on 30.8.2024 and the prosecution failed to explain this inordinate delay. As a matter of fact the prosecutrix and her husband Ajit Kumar have got divorced each other from the competent Court vide order dated 12.1.2022 and since then she was no more the wife of Ajit Kumar. As per the statement of victim herself she was living in another city with the appellant but there is no evidence on record that she made any complaint or noise during the period of stay with the appellant. Medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version as the victim herself refused to be medically examined. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant is in jail since 15.10.2024. 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. 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 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. It is a case of rape with a married lady, who was sold by her husband and keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offence, he is not entitled for bail. 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, inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and also the fact that no complaint or noise was made by the victim while she was living with the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad