Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38767 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 854 of 2024 Appellant :- Subham @ Tarun Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manvendra Singh,Phool Singh Yadav,Vaibhav Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Compliance affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant-Subham @ Tarun Yadav against the bail rejection order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Fatehpur in Bail Application No. 2303 of 2023. 4. At the very outset, the Court takes notice of this fact that by way of filing compliance affidavit the Investigating Officer after making further investigation under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C has submitted supplementary charge-sheet before the trial court wherein it has been mentioned that section 363 IPC has been deleted from this matter. 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix in this case is a major girl and she has been a consenting party she maintained physical relations with the present appellant. It is also submitted that prosecution story is not plausible or natural because it says that for a period of about six days the prosecutrix had been living with the appellant in Varanasi and she also travelled by public transport with the appellant but there is no evidence on record to show that she made any protest or any noise against the appellant. It is inferred from the statement made by the victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that she has been a consenting party to the relationship. It is further submitted that Investigating Officer has deleted the offence of section 363 IPC from this matter which denotes that the victim was a major lady at the time of alleged offence. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to the fact that some obscene photographs and videos related to the victim were made viral by the present appellant, as the said electronic evidence is not supported with any certificate required by law. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to show prima-facie that the offence was made in public view and it was committed by the appellant on account of the victim being a member of SC/ST community. It is lastly submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 10.08.2022. 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. 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. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer made in the instant appeal, but did not dispute the above facts submitted by learned counsel for 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. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 25.10.2023. 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, severity of punishment, 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 10. Let the appellant- Subham @ Tarun Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 72 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, 328, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, and Section 66 I.T. Act, Police Station-Jafarganj, District Fatehpur 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. 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 :- 18.3.2025 Vikram Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad