Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12979 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3966 of 2024 Appellant :- Vimlesh Kashyap Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Parijat Mishra Belaura Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gauri Shankar Maurya Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 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 08.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2757 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 146 of 2024, under Sections 376 D, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, P.S. Dhammaur, District Sultanpur. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 22.08.2024 in relation to the incident dated 11.11.2023. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution case, the marriage of the victim was settled with someone else, on which, the appellant snatched the mobile of the victim and sent her intimated photograph to her fiance, due to which, the marriage was broken. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after considering the entire evidences collected, there is no evidence that any such photograph was recovered from the mobile of the appellant. It is vehemently submitted that though as per the prosecution case, victim was raped by the appellant and video of the same was captured by the co-accused- Arman, but the medico legal report does not support the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the offence of POCSO Act was dropped by the Investigating Officer. It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet in mechanical manner, but the court below failed to appreciate the evidences in correct perspective and passed the impugned order. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who is in jail since 25.09.2024, is entitled for bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that the incident was taken place and photo of the same was transferred by the appellant on the mobile phone of the victim as well as to her fiance, due to which, her marriage was broken. Thereafter, all these facts came into notice of the complainant and he lodged the F.I.R. However, they do not dispute the fact that no such photograph or video was recovered from the mobile of the appellant. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R. impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that in relation to the incident taken place on 11.11.2023, the F.I.R. was lodged under the order of the Magistrate on 22.08.2024. It is also evident from the record that the F.I.R. was lodged when the marriage of the victim was broken. 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. 7. Impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2757 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 146 of 2024, under Sections 376 D, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, P.S. Dhammaur, District Sultanpur, is hereby set aside. 8. Let appellant, Vimlesh Kashyap 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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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 :- 4.3.2025 VKS Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench