Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130841 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1000 of 2025 Appellant :- Seetu Alias Istiyak Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant - Seetu @ Istiyak to set aside the bail rejection order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar in bail application no. 829 of 2025 in Case Crime No. 0512 of 2024, under sections 64(2)(e), 351(2) of BNS and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. As per first information report, allegation against the appellant is that he committed rape upon the victim. 4. 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 the appellant is the owner of the hospital where victim was working as a nurse. As per the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183(1) BNSS, no such allegation of the S.C./S.T Act is made out and medical report also not supported the prosecution story, therefore, allegation of rape, prima-facie, is not made out against the appellant. It is further submitted that the trial court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 04.11.2024 having no criminal history. It is submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. could not dispute aforesaid factual aspects of the matter. 6. 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. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in aforesaid case crime number 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. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) 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. (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. 10. 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 :- 4.8.2025 PS Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad