Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46103 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12143 of 2024 Appellant :- Amitmani Tripathi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Katyaini Singh,Shashi Dhar Goswami Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Yadav 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 Amitmani Tripathi against the bail rejection order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur in case crime no. 111 of 2024 under Sections 64, 351(2) of B.N.S. & 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) & 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District- Mirzapur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecutrix who is a member of SC/ST community was living in the room of the accused appellant on rent but after some days after administering some intoxicating substance to the victim, the appellant obtained some obscene photographs of the lady victim and by threatening her on the basis of the same, he made forcibly physical relation with the victim and the criminal act continued for long till 24.07.2024. Next day, she went to her house and informed to her parents, an application was moved to the police and subsequently F.I.R. was lodged on 21.09.2024. 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the victim of this case is a major and mature lady and the relationship between the two was made and develop with the free will and consent of the victim herself. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after two months of the occurrence without any plausible explanation of the delay. It is next submitted that there is no obscene photographs on record. It is next submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that there are a lot of contradictory statements made by the prosecutrix in her statement under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that the incident has not been supported by the independent witnesses. It is also submitted that the appellant and the victim both were living in live-in relationship for a long period of about three years. It is further submitted that some civil dispute arose between the parties and the civil suit was also filed by the appellant and that was the cause of false implication of the appellant in this case. It is further submitted that the criminal history of one case pertaining to the appellant has been explained in the affidavit. All the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and frivolous. It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 22.09.2024. 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. 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 vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and it has been submitted that 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 dated 23.10.2024. It is further submitted that after investigation, now charge sheet has been submitted in this matter. It is next submitted that the appellant had full knowledge of the fact that the prosecutrix belonged to SC/ST Community. It is next submitted that there was no live-in relationship between the parties and the victim has never been a consenting party to the physical relationship made between the two. It is further submitted that on the ground of blackmailing and threatening the victim on the basis of obscene photographs and videos, rape was committed with the prosecutrix and the appeal of the appellant deserves to be dismissed. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 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. Hence, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Shivangi Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad