Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44741 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1605 of 2025 Appellant :- Satish Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Aakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kamal Kishor Tiwari,Swatantra Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard counsel for the appellant, Shri Kamal Kishor Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.936 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.136 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Raebareli. 3. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation in the FIR against the appellant is to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the appellant established physical relations with the victim, thus, if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value then in that eventuality, possibility of conviction of appellant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s) rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 7 SCC; Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110 and Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230. 4. It is further submitted that the statements of the victim recorded in terms of Section(s) 180 and 183 B.N.S. before the Investigating Officer and before the court concerned, respectively, would indicate that the period of relationship between the appellant and the victim/opposite party no.2, aged about 21 years, i.e. about six years. 5. It is further submitted that the medical evidence also does not support the story of the prosecution. 6. It is further submitted that the appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 29.03.2025. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, as also the fact indicated that medical evidence also does not support the story of the prosecution as also the appellant is in jail since 29.03.2025 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. 10. Order dated 28.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.936 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.136 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Raebareli is hereby set aside. 11. Let the appellant- Satish Kumar Yadav 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. 12. 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 13. 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 :- 1.8.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench