Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3528 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3841 of 2024 Appellant :- Anil Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Shrivastava,Mrityunjay Tiwari,Surya Nath Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Aman Kumar Shrivastav,Divyanshu Tripathi Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Rohit Singh holding brief of Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Mamta Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Aman Kumar Shrivastav for respondent no. 2-complainant. 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 26.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 9302 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 420 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 74, 64, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the victim, who is a major and prudent lady, is a professional Event Manager. She is also the tenant of the ancestral house of the appellant. It is further submitted that the victim joined the company of the appellant on her own and thereafter, started insisting the appellant for solemnizing marriage with her. However, since the appellant denied for the same, the victim lodged the F.I.R. No. 420 of 2024 (supra) on the basis of concocted facts that on 02.09.2024, she was brutally beaten by the family members of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that neither any medico legal report of the same was placed before the Investigating OfÏcer nor is available in the case diary. It is next submitted that the Investigating OfÏcer also failed to ask the specific question from the victim about the medico legal report of the incident dated 02.09.2024. However, the Investigating OfÏcer submitted the charge sheet merely on the basis of statement of the victim, without considering the evidence provided by the appellant. It is lastly submitted that the appellant is ready to enter into marriage with the victim. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the trial court is liable to be quashed and the appellant, who is in jail since 21.09.2024, is entitled for bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that after sufÏcient evidences collected by the Investigating OfÏcer, charge sheet was filed. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that appellant denied to solemnize marriage with the victim, due to which, the F.I.R. was lodged. It is further submitted that, in case, the appellant is ready to solemnize marriage with the victim then she has no objection to the prayer of granting bail to the appellant. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the judgment of the court below dated 26.11.2024, it is evident that the victim is a major and prudent lady working an Event Manager. It is further evident that she is one of the tenant in the ancestral house of the appellant and they were willing to enter into marriage, but the same could not be solemnized, due to which, the F.I.R. was lodged. It is also evident that both the parties are ready to solemnize marriage. In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed. 6. Impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 9302 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 420 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 74, 64, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow, is hereby set aside. 7. Let appellant, Anil Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 VKS Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench