HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1337 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. Supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal history of the appellant filed today is taken on record. 3. Criminal history has not been opposed by learned AGA, as also by learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 4. 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 18.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 74 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 90 of 2025, under Sections 376, 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mohammadi, District - Lakhimpur Kheri. 5. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 18.03.2025, it is stated that the appellant is in jail since 15.02.2025. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jalaj Kumar Gupta, Ramakar Shukla, Subodh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Arvind Kumar Verma, Navneet Mishra Sumoel Khan Alias Bantu .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) 6. It is also stated before this Court that possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. 7. It is also stated that a perusal of the FIR lodged by the victim/prosecutrix, who at the time of incident was aged about 35 years, in connection with which the appellant is in jail since 15.02.2025, would indicate that after the death of the husband of the victim/prosecutrix, who died on 29.04.2021 during Corona Period, the appellant and the victim/prosecutrix came into contact and physical relations were also developed. 8. It is also stated that it further appears from a conjoint reading of FIR and the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. that the FIR was in fact lodged only to extract the money from the Government Exchequer as also the present appellant, for sustenance as the husband of the respondent no.2/victim had expired on 29.04.2021 during Corona Period and also to pressurize the appellant to continue with the relationship, if any, which could not continue for some reasons. 9. 9. It is further stated that medical opinion does not support the story of the victim, who in fact is not a sterling witness and as such taking note of the aforesaid aspect of the case, as also period of incarceration, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 10. Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 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 victim including the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S.. CRLA No. 1337 of 2025 2 12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the medical opinion as also 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 18.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 74 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 90 of 2025, under Sections 376, 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mohammadi, District - Lakhimpur Kheri is set aside. 14. Let appellant Sumoel Khan Alias Bantu, 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 CRLA No. 1337 of 2025 3 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. 1337 of 2025 4 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench