Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37995 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3209 of 2024 Appellant :- Ram Satish Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar,Ajay Deep Verma,Akshay Singh,Arshad Siddiqui,Devanshu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2/complainant/victim despite service of notice, as appears from Office Report dated 18.11.2024. However, learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 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 04.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.2823 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.676 of 2024, under Sections- 376, 504 I.P.C and Sections- 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki. 4. It is stated that the case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage, the appellant established physical relations with the victim, who at the relevant point of time was aged about 23 years, and accordingly the case of the prosecution would be considered by the trial court in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements on issue related to making physical relations on the pretext of false promise of marriage and, 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. 5. It is further submitted that statement of the victim/informant has already been recorded before the trial court and as such there is no possibility of influencing the main witness of the fact, who is victim herself. 6. It is further stated that the appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 30.07.2024. 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 A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant. 8. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, 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, including that the appellant is in jail since 30.07.2024 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. 10. Order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.2823 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.676 of 2024, under Sections- 376, 504 I.P.C and Sections- 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside. 11. Let the appellant- Ram Satish 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 :- 4.7.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench