Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24716 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12820 of 2024 Appellant :- Bhartendu Bhushan Bharadwaj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya Counsel for Respondent :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh,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 Bhartendu Bhushan Bharadwaj against the bail rejection order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh in case crime no. 20 of 2023 under Sections- 376, 452, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jawan, District- Aligarh in fourth Bail Application No. 1232 of 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The only ground which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this second criminal appeal is the detention period of the appellant. It is also submitted that the case has been fixed for recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and now there is no apprehension of tampering of evidence on the part of the appellant. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. 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 28.3.2023. 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. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and it has been 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 14.10.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 5. 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. 6. Having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and the fact that this is a case under Section 376 I.P.C. where forceful physical relations have been made by the accused appellant with the victim of this case and also considering that the case is mature for disposal and incarceration period only is not a ground to allow the instant appeal, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. 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. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad