Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37182 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11532 of 2024 Appellant :- Hasanraja Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Meraj Ahmad,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Yadav,Vijay Bahadur Yadadv 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 - Hasanraja with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mau and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 153 of 2024 under Sections 64, 316(2) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Chiraiyakot, District Mau. 2. Heard Shri Meraj Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 / informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution has come forward with the allegation that on 22.9.2024 at 8.00 p.m. the present appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix in her house when she was alone and on the false pretext of marriage by concealing his religion he continued physical relations with the victim. He also grabbed a lot of money from the prosecutrix through electronic transaction and when the victim asked him to marry, he hurled abuses with caste related remarks. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now charge sheet has been submitted. 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 also submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex. Both sides were living with each other with free will and consent of the victim herself and this relation continued for a period of about three years. It is also submitted that no promise of marriage was ever made by the present appellant. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. It is further submitted that the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has made some twisted and contradictory statements. The appellant is in jail since 30.9.2024. The appellant has no criminal history to his credit. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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. There is no possibility of false implication of the appellant. On the false pretext of marriage by concealing his religion the present appellant developed physical relations with the major victim which continued for a period of about three years. 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the appellant has no criminal history, age of the victim, who is a major lady and also the fact that for a period of three years the victim continued physical relations with the appellant with her free will, 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. 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. 10. 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 :- 17.3.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad