Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127917 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12305 of 2024 Appellant :- Suraj Patel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Shanta Prasad,Surya Bhan Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are 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 - Suraj Patel with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 267 of 2024 under Sections 115(2) of BNS 64(2)(ka), Section 3(2)(5), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District Varanasi. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice none is present for the opposite party no.2. 4. As per the prosecution case, when daughter of the lady informant had gone to ease on 4.10.2024 at about 10.00 p.m. she was caught by the present appellant, who was in drunken position, and dragged her to nearby field where rape was committed with her by him. Victim belongs to weaker section of society and is a member of SC/ST community. F.I.R. was lodged against the present appellant and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet. 5. 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. Entire prosecution story is based on false and concocted facts. It is further submitted that F.I.R. in this case was lodged after 20 hours without any plausible explanation regarding delay. As a matter of fact the appellant had gone to the house of the victim to repair the dish antenna and no offence, as alleged in the F.I.R., has been committed by him with the victim. There are material contradictions in the contents of F.I.R. and in the statements of the victim and informant recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS. Medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution story. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. Criminal history of the appellant has been explained sufficiently. He is in jail since 6.10.2024. 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 orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellant suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. It is also submitted that the offence of rape has been committed with the married victim and in her medical examination nothing adverse was found. Daring offence was committed by the appellant by committing rape with the daughter of the informant in the night. Appellant is not entitled for bail on the basis of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and detention period. The victim and informant have supported the prosecution story in their statements recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS. The I.O. of this case has made thorough investigation in the matter and charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant and cognizance has also been taken by the competent Court. There is ample evidence against the appellant on record. Offence committed by the appellant is very serious and grievous. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, statement made by the victim under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS which was not having any material contradiction, 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. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad