Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48586 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1361 of 2025 Appellant :- Devendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumari Tiwari,Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ambica Tripathi Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard counsel for the appellant, Ms. Ambica Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.853/12A/2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.50 of 2015, under Sections- 323, 376(Chha-D), 504, 506 & 109 I.P.C. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Bahraich. 3. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in jail since 12.11.2024 and in fact he has not committed any offence. 4. It is further stated that co-accused, namely, Pappu Verma @ Rambali Verma and Vijendra Singh Rathi, whose role is similar to the appellant, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.02.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.886 of 2021 and 1044 of 2021 respectively. Another co-accused, namely, Poonam Arya @ Sati has also been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.584 of 2024. Relevant portion of order dated 02.02.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.886 of 2021 is extracted hereinunder. "Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Sri Sudhir Upadhyaya, learned A.G.A. for the State,Sri Shiva Shashank, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ajay Madhavan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. Instant criminal appeal under section 14-A of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 12.05.2021 passed by Incharge Additional Session Jude/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District-Bahraich, arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2015 under Sections 323,504,506,376 IP.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station -Mahila Thana, District -Bahraich and has sought bail in the aforesaid sections. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present matter. He next added that initially the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged implicating as many as 53 accused persons with the allegation that they have committed rape with the prosecutrix. He next added that thereafter the matter was investigated and it was found that it is not a case of gang rape and every story is concocted and thus, only on the statement of the victim, the chargesheet under sections 376 alongwith 325,504, 506 I.P.C. readwith section Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act has been filed. He added that the very basis of the F.I.R. itself demolishes as the gang rape has been converted into a case of simple rape and thus, the whole story of the prosecution belies on this context. Adding his arguments, he submits that a very reputed person of the society has also been named in the F.I.R. without there being any specific allegation and further there is no corroborative and substantive evidence against the appellant so as to the allegations with respect to the rape is concerned. He next added that the statement of the prosecutrix is about 11 pages and there is no substantial statement with respect to the allegation of rape with the prosecutrix. He submits that in fact no such offence has ever been committed by the appellant, but, the F.I.R. has been lodged only on the baseless and concocted story. He next added that since there is no substantive evidence against the appellant and as such there is no fate of trial. He also added that there is no conclusion of the trial proceedings in near future and the appellant is suffering for his no fault. He next added that there is criminal history of one case against the appellant and he is languishing in jail since 03-04-2021. He submits that the appellant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the present appellant is named in the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. itself is evident that there is allegation of rape against the appellant. He further added that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has named the present appellant and as such the present appellant is not entitled for bail. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has supported the version of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and submits that the appellant is not entitled for bail. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it evident that there is no specific allegation against the present appellant with respect to commission of rape and the bald and blatant allegations have been levelled against 53 accused persons including the present appellant for committing rape with the prosecutrix though, later on the story was found false and the chargesheet was filed under section 376 I.P.C. alongwith other sections and by first hand, it was found by the Investigating Officer that it is a simple case of rape. In this view of the matter, the basis of lodging the F.I.R. itself demolishes and further this court has also noticed the fact that the prosecutrix in her statement has also not specified any role to any of the other accused persons including the present appellant and has only slapped the general role of committing rape. The voluminous F.I.R. was lodged including the statement of the prosecutrix which runs into 22 pages under section 164 Cr.P.C., which itself is evident that there are general allegations and that too do not seem to be given by the same person. Further, the appellant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2021. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated 12.05.2021 passed by Incharge Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Bahraich in Bail Application No. 687/12-A/2021 is set aside." 5. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail. 6. Ms. Ambica Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record. 8. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, including the fact that co-accused, namely, Pappu Verma @ Rambali Verma and Vijendra Singh Rathi, whose role is similar to the appellant, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.02.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.886 of 2021 and 1044 of 2021 respectively, as also the fact that the appellant is in jail since 12.11.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. 9. Order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.853/12A/2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.50 of 2015, under Sections- 323, 376(Chha-D), 504, 506 & 109 I.P.C. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Bahraich is hereby set aside. 10. Let the appellant- Devendra Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (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 shall 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. 11. 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 12. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench