Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17244 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11913 of 2024 Appellant :- Parmeshwar Prasad Panika Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anothers Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Prakash Shukla 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 with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice upon the respondent no. 2, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.08.2024 between 10.30 A.M. to 11.20 P.M. when the victim was standing near Durga Temple waiting for bus, co-accused Mahesh Yadav called her, who was also standing there alongwith two other unknown associates, and she was made unconscious by co-accused Mahesh Yadav. When she became conscious, she found herself in naked condition sustaining two injuries and saw the co-accused Mahesh Yadav and two unknown persons moving from there. F.I.R. was lodged and the victim was medically examined. 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 the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. It is next submitted that during investigation, an improvement has been made by the victim by naming the appellant. It is next submitted that the prosecution has failed to assign any reason as to how the victim came to know the appellant. It is also submitted that twisted statement has been made by the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S. It is next submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record to show the complicity of the appellant in commission of the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the appellant belongs to scheduled caste community. 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 languishing in jail since 01.09.2024 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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the appellant by the victim. It is further submitted that it is a case of gang rape and participation of the appellant in the present crime has come into light during investigation. However, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the appellant was unknown to the victim at the time of alleged 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, and also the fact that the name of the appellant was brought into light during investigation and prima facie there is no reason as to how the victim came to know and identify 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 Parmeshwar Prasad Panika involved in Case Crime No. 133 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra 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 :- 6.2.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad