Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21002 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 436 of 2025 Appellant :- Ankur Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Yadav,Shailendra Yadav,Shravan Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Aman Singh Bhadoriya,Jitendra Vikram Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Heard Shri Shailendra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Jitendra Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 344/2025 (Ankur Yadav vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 432 of 2024, under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Ashiyana, District- Lucknow. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. The appellant had given money to the respondent no. 2 i.e., the complainant and her brother on different dates in the last three years from 2022 to 2024. The same was not returned, therefore, the appellant filed Regular Suit No. 3084 of 2024 (Ankur Yadav vs. Sahil Swaroop and another) for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 73,600/- in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow and a complaint case under Section 210 of B.N.S.S. The said suit was filed on 29.11.2024 and complaint case on 05.12.2024. On coming to now about the same, the false and concocted FIR has been lodged on 14.12.2024 levelling false allegations against the appellant. He further submits that the respondent no. 2 has taken different stands in the FIR and her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. and tried to develop the allegations. Even otherwise if the averment of the respondent no. 2 herself is believed to be correct, it was a consensual relationship between the parties, which has also been admitted by the mother and father of the respondent no. 2 in their statements. He also submits that the appellant as well as the respondent no. 2 are residing in the same area and they have family relations. He also submits that there is no criminal history of the appellant and he is languishing in jail since 15.12.2024. He also submits that in case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and assist the trial court in expeditious disposal of trial. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that since the parties are known to each other, therefore, there was exchange of money from both sides. The respondent no. 2 has also given some money to the appellant. However, the FIR has rightly been lodged by the respondent no. 2 alleging that physical relationship has been made by the appellant on the promise of marriage and on being asked to marry, he has denied and also threatened and made casteist remarks against the respondent no. 2. He further submits that even after entering into an agreement to marry with the respondent no. 2 before police, the appellant filed the aforesaid suit and complaint case. Thus, the submission is that the appeal is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. Learned AGA vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant. He made similar submissions as made by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the mother and father of the respondent no. 2 have admitted in their statements about the relationship of the appellant and the respondent no. 2. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the allegations of the respondent no. 2 made in the FIR as well as her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., it appears to be a case of consensual relationship between the parties for about last 12 years and there was exchange of money also between the parties, on account of which a suit for recovery of money and a complaint case was filed by the appellant. Immediately thereafter, the FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 2. The relationship between the parties has been admitted by the parents of the respondent no. 2. So far as the casteist remarks are concerned, it could not be shown at this stage that it was in public view even if it was so. Thus, a case for bail is made out in favour of the appellant and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Ankur Yadav involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (v) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Shravan Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench