Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85980 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12108 of 2024 Appellant :- Sanjay Nayak Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rafeek Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') has been preferred against the order dated 12.08.2024 whereby the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba has rejected the bail application of the appellant. 3. Prayer has been made to allow the appeal and release the appellant on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No.221 of 2024, under Sections 76, 115(2), 308 (5), 333, 351(3), 317 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(1) of the Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2021, Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba. 4. Notice was issued to the opposite party No.2 on 10.12.2024. 5. Office report dated 30.04.2025 indicates that a letter has been received from C.J.M., Mahoba stating therein that opposite party No.2 has left the village with her family six months ago. 6. In view of above, this Court has no option but to proceed with the matter on merits particularly when it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that out of four accused persons to whom common role was assigned in the FIR, three have already been released on bail under the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that common allegations were levelled against all the four co-accused persons in the FIR dated 03.07.2024 and since, by a detailed order dated 27.02.2025, co-accused Rahul @ Badde, Pravendra and Yogesh @ Shakha have already been granted bail and there being no distinguishable feature as far as appellant's role is concerned, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that heinous crime was committed by all the co-accused persons and there being sufficient material on record to demonstrate that none of them is innocent and all have been involved in the commission of crime, no case for grant of bail stands made out. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute that vide annexure No.SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit, remaining three co-accused persons have been released on bail. 9. This Court deems it appropriate to refer the bail order dated 27.02.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.8952 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No.8809 of 2024. The order reads as under: "1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants- Rahul @ Badde, Pravendra, Yogesh @ Shakha with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 6.8.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba. 3. The major victim lady of this case had gone to see some rented house along with her friend Dhanesh Kumar Pal and when she entered in the room Yogesh Rajpoot, Sanjay Nayak, Rahul @ Badde and Pravendra came there and made some indecent behavior with the victim and also procured some obscene video relating to the victim of this case and on the basis of that she was further black mailed. The incident occurred on 1.7.2024 whereas the FIR was lodged on 3.7.2024 now the charge sheet has been submitted and the deposition of P.W.1 has also been recorded. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions in the statement given by the victim under Section 181 BNSS and her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that in her deposition recorded before the Court the victim of this case did not corroborate the prosecution version as P.W.1 and as a matter of fact none of the named accused persons were levelled any allegation by P.W.1 rather she blamed her friend Dhanesh Kumar Pal responsible for the whole crime. It is further submitted that no obscene video has been made viral on social media by any of the accused persons. The trial Court 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. Appellants Rahul @ Badde and Pravendra are in jail since 10.7.2024 and appellant Yogesh @ Shakha is in jail since 5.7.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 6.8.2024 but however could not dispute this fact that in her testimony recorded before the Court the victim has levelled all the allegations against her friend Dhanesh Kumar Pal and no specific allegation for any offence has been levelled by her against the present appellants. 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, severity of punishment, and also keeping in view the deposition recorded by the victim herself before the trial Court, the incarceration period, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set- aside and the appeal is to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the appellants- Rahul @ Badde, Pravendra, Yogesh @ Shakha involved in Case Crime No.221 of 2024, under Sections 76, 115(2), 308 (5), 333, 351(3), 317 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Ba)(1) of the Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2021, Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v) The appellants 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 them 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." 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid order granting bail to the co-accused persons, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order 12.08.2024 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 12. Let the appellant- Sanjay Nayak involved in Case Crime No. 221 of 2024 under Sections 76, 115 (2), 308 (5), 333, 351 (3), 317 (2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (5), 3(2)(5ka), 3(1)(B)(1) SC/ST Act and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Kulpahar, District- Mahoba be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 13. 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 :- 21.5.2025 R.S. Tiwari Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad