Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59519 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12498 of 2024 Appellant :- Rampratap Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Naresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shivakant Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken 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 appellant - Rampratap Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 2.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Bail Application No. 1986 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 181 of 2024 under Sections 64 (2)Ta, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(2)V, 3(2)Va SC/ST Act, Police Station - Hathgaon, District- Fatehpur. 3. Victim, the daughter of the informant, aged about 25 years, is mentally retarded lady and on the pretext of charge her mobile the present accused appellant was taken to his house and rape was committed with her on 22.9.2024 at about 7.30 pm. FIR was lodged and now the charge sheet has been submitted. 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 girl although in her statement under Section 180 BNSS she has supported the prosecution version but in her statement under Section 183 BNSS she has made some statements which prima facie shows her consent to the physical relation with the appellant. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that only due to the village animosity the present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that now the victim is a married lady which negates the fact of her being mentally retarded. It is also submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged four days after the incident without any plausible explanation for this delay. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. 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. Appellant is in jail since 7.10.2024. 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 and learned counsel for the informant 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 dated 2.12.2024. It is further submitted that in the FIR itself it has been mentioned that the victim is a mentally retarded girl. It is also submitted that the independent witnesses of this case have corroborated the prosecution version that they had seen the victim going to the house of the appellant to get her mobile charged. It is also submitted that in the doctor's report it is mentioned that she is suffering from intellectual and psychological disability but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the FIR was lodged belatedly and no plausible explanation appears to be on record and also that in the statement of victim herself under Section 183 BNSS she appears to be a consenting party to the alleged physical relations. 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, the prima facie consent of the prosecutrix to make sexual relation, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has 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 appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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. 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. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad