Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8433 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3821 of 2024 Appellant :- Avneesh Pratap Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dileep Kumar Tiwari,Md.Khurshed Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 8.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Court No. 2, Sultanpur. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that in this case the victim was major and consensus. It is also submitted that the victim was in relation with the appellant from the year 2023 and there was conversation between both of them. Physical relations were also established between them but later on due to dispute between both of them, present FIR has been lodged. The case does not come within the purview of the offence of rape. While passing the impugned order, all these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned Special Judge and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 27.07.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party as well as AGA opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the fact of relationship between the parties. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, submissions made by both the parties, perusal of record, statement of victim as recorded by the learned Magistrate, her age and being consensus, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set- aside. Let the appellant Avneesh Pratap Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 157 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Amethi, District Amethi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. 1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 AKK Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench