HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1210 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent and Shri Atul Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1048 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2025, under Sections 64, 77, 89, 354(2) BNS and Sections 3(2)5 of Act of 1989, P.S. Sushant Golf City, District - Lucknow. 3. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 05.03.2025, it is stated that the prosecutrix/victim is an informant, and at the time of lodging of FIR, she was aged about 23 years old, and she was married to one Sonu, relationship with whom could not continue, and therefore the prosecutrix/victim lodged an FIR against Sonu and his family members, making allegations therein to attract offense under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. It is further stated that on account of matrimonial dispute/discord, victim left her matrimonial house and was living near Annapurna Dhaba, where the appellant was working. 5. It is further stated that the victim also started job at Annapurna Dhaba, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Vivek Tiwari, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Sushil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Atul Kumar Trivedi Udit Mishra .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) near SGPGI, Lucknow and the relationship between the appellant and the victim developed, which continued for some period, and thereafter the same could not be continued, and therefore the victim, to continue the said relationship, lodged the FIR, making various allegations, including the allegations to commit physical relations forcefully, as also making of video- clip. 6. It is also stated during investigation, the said video-clip has not been recovered, and therefore the charge sheet has not been filed under Information Technology Act, and for other offense charge sheet is based upon only testimony of prosecutrix/victim. 7. It is further stated that the victim is not a truthful person, as medical opinion does not support the story of the prosecution. 8. It is also stated that the appellant is in jail since 04.02.2025. 9. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required and as such, the appellant, having no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 10. Learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Atul Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel. 11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses including the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. 12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the medical opinion and the age of the victim as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed. 13. Order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1048 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of CRLA No. 1210 of 2025 2 2025, under Sections 64, 77, 89, 354(2) BNS and Sections 3(2)5 of Act of 1989, P.S. Sushant Golf City, District - Lucknow is set aside. 14. Let appellant Udit Mishra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- 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./Section 351 BNSS. 15. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law 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. September 22, 2025/Mohit Singh CRLA No. 1210 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench