Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30325 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12363 of 2024 Appellant :- Ravi Yadav Alias Rajat Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sheo Mani Yadav 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 - Ravi Yadav Alias Rajat Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 193 of 2024 under Sections 64 of BNS and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Marihan, District Mirzapur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 4. The prosecution has come forward with the allegation that on 5.10.2024 at about 11.30 a.m. when the minor victim had gone to the field to ease herself, present appellant caught hold her and tried to outrage her modesty. F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under Sections 74 of BNS, 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, but however, during investigation the victim was found major and offence under Section 7/8 POCSO Act was deleted but on the basis of statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, offence under Section 64 of BNS (376 IPC) was added to the matter and after investigation now charge sheet has been submitted. 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. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. itself lodged by the uncle of the victim any story of forceful physical relation made by the appellant with the victim, who was minor on the date of incident, has not been narrated. During investigation on the basis of statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, offence under Section 64 BNS was added to the matter. Entire prosecution story is concocted and significant improvements have been made by the victim of this case in her statement under Section 183 BNSS. Medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant is in jail since 25.10.2024. 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 order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted 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. There is no possibility of false implication of the appellant. 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, the fact that in the F.I.R. no allegation of rape was levelled against the appellant but by making a twisted statement the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 183 BNSS alleged for offence committing rape with her by the present appellant, the appellant has no criminal history, the 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 aforesaid appellant involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 :- 4.3.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad