Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56218 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12608 of 2024 Appellant :- Babalu Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. 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 - Babalu Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 355 of 2024, under Sections 70(1) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Khuthan, District Jaunpur. 2. 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. 3. The prosecution story, as culled out from the F.I.R., is that on 23.11.2024 at about 8.00 p.m. when the informant and her husband, who are deaf and dumb persons, were working in their field, the tractor driver Bablu Yadav, present appellant, alongwith co-accused Sarvesh Gautam sent the husband of the informant to his house and meanwhile forcible sexual relations were made by both the accused persons with the prosecutrix and when her husband came back, they fled away. F.I.R. was lodged on 25.11.2024 and after investigation now 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. There are major contradictions in the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. and the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. Due to money dispute, a false prosecution has been launched against the present appellant. It is further submitted that even the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. The appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that F.I.R. in the matter was lodged two days after the incident without any plausible explanation regarding delay and the medical examination of the victim was also performed two days after the incident. Appellants are in jail since 26.11.2024. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for grant of bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to SC/ST community in a place within public view. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is a case of gang rap with a deaf and dumb lady. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 BNSS was recorded with the aid of a psychologist and the accused appellant was identified by the victim when she was shown the photograph of the appellant. It is also submitted that in the rape cases delay in lodging the F.I.R. has no relevance at all. Ample and sufficient evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the present appellant and there was no cogent reason for false implication of the present appellant. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. 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. 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, the fact that gang rape has been committed with the married lady, who was deaf and dumb, gravity of the offence, 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 :- 16.4.2025/safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad