Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41722 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 626 of 2025 Appellant :- Surya Prakash Singh @ Suraj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhimbahadur Singh,Jay Prakash Singh,Satyendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Satyendra Kumar Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. On 15.07.2025, this Court has passed the following order:- "Case called out. Learned counsel for the appellant is present. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2. In the interest of justice, case is adjourned for the day. List this case on 22.07.2025, in top 10 cases. It is made clear that in case learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 fails to appear on the next date, case would not be adjourned on any ground including the ground of illness and the court would proceed to decide the case on its merits. " 2. Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2- victim to oppose the present appeal. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeds to hear the instant appeal with the assistance of learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Shukla, learned State Counsel. 3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Lucknow (in short 'trial court') in Bail Application No. 10102 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 489/2024 under Sections 376/504/506 IPC & 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Chinhat, District-Lucknow, whereby rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 4. It is stated that respondent no.2-victim, aged about 21 years at relevant point of time, levelled allegations against the appellant in the FIR, according to which on 10.04.2023 the appellant committed rape with the victim after administering some intoxicant substance, who was in the premises of the appellant in relation to sanctioning of loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the video clip of the same was made by the appellant and thereafter based upon the said video clip, several times the appellant established physical relations with the victim. 5. It is further stated that the FIR also indicates that victim on account of establishing physical relations by the appellant, got pregnant. 6. It is further submitted that the story in nutshell indicated in the FIR is completely bogus and false. Explaining, it is stated that during investigation, no material was found from the possession of the appellant or on pointing out of the appellant, based upon which the offences indicated in the Information Technology Act, could be attracted. 7. It is further submitted that incident occurred on 10.04.2023, however, the FIR was lodged after about one and a half year and there is no explanation in this regard. 8. It is further stated that medical opinion also does not support the case of the prosecution including the case related to pregnancy of respondent no.2-victim. 9. It is further submitted that relationship of appellant and respondent no.2-victim was consensual and to create pressure for solemnizing marriage with the respondent no.2-victim, the FIR was lodged against the appellant. 10. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. 11. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail. 12. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant. 13. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., statements of the victim, medical report as well as other relevant documents, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. 14. Order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the trial Court in Bail Application No. 10102 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 489/2024 under Sections 376/504/506 IPC & 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Chinhat, District-Lucknow, is hereby set aside. 15. Let appellant Surya Prakash Singh alias Suraj Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 16. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Jyoti/- Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench