Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27496 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11665 of 2024 Appellant :- Dilip Maurya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Yatharth Srivastava Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1.List has been revised. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. No one is present on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Dilip Maurya with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mirzapur and to release the appellant on bail in case Crime No. 127 of 2024, under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2) V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rajgarh, District Mirzapur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that for a period of about two years the victim pursuing A.N.M. Course had been living in live-in relationship with the accused appellant. On 19.09.2024 on the call of the appellant the victim went to the hospital concerned and subsequently she went to the house of the appellant, where the appellant forcibly made physical relationship with her and abused her by caste which it was protested by the victim and F.I.R. was lodged. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that as a matter fact, the mother of the victim was admitted in the hospital and considering the poor condition of the victim, the appellant gave Rs.80,000/- to the victim for treatment of her mother and when he demanded the said money, the F.I.R. was falsely lodged against the appellant. It is next submitted that medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. The appellant is a married person. He is having no concern with the victim and no physical relation was made by the appellant with the victim. It is also submitted that 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 also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 21.09.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 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. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and emphasis has been laid down upon the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of Bhartiya Magrik Suraksha Sanhita. However, the statements made by the victim under Sections 180 and 183 of Bhartiya Magrik Suraksha Sanhita disclose some relevant contradictory statement regarding place of occurrence. 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, non-encashment of the cheques in favour of the appellant, this 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 appellant Dilip Maurya involved in Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2) V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rajgarh, District Mirzapur 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 :- 27.2.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad