HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4089 of 2024 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite parties despite service of notice, as appears from Office Report dated 04.09.2025 and Annexure No. CA-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit of State dated 08.09.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 29.08.2025, which says "Considering the aforesaid as also the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by this Court, it is made clear that on the next date fixed, the case would not be adjourned in absence of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and the same would be heard on merits as the issue relates to enlargement of appellant on bail", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail 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 15.10.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 3351 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 527 of 2024, under Sections- 64, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section- 67 of I.T. Act and Sections- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Deva, District- Barabanki. 4. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the informant has levelleved allegations in the FIR against the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dileep Kumar, Poonam, Shobha Rajpoot, Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Arun Kumar Singh Sonu Kashyap .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) appellant, who is in jail since 10.10.2024, in nutshell to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the appellant established physical relations with his sister/victim, who is a major lady aged about 21 years on the date of occurrence, 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. 5. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 10.10.2024. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 10.10.2024 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. 9. Order dated 15.10.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 3351 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 527 of 2024, under Sections- 64, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section- 67 of I.T. Act and Sections- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Deva, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside. 10. Let the appellant- Sonu Kashyap 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 CRLA No. 4089 of 2024 2 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. 11. 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 12. 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. September 12, 2025 Arun/- CRLA No. 4089 of 2024 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench