HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2237 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (I.A. No.01 of 2025) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State. The Counter Affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record. This Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenges the order dated 23.06.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Rae Bareli, rejecting the bail application of the appellant, Raj Kumar Maurya, in connection with Case Crime No. 169 of 2025, under Sections 333, 74, 352, 351(2), 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Unchahar, District Rae Bareli. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that there is a significant and unexplained delay of 21 hours in lodging the F.I.R.; that the initial F.I.R. did not contain any allegation of rape, which was introduced later, eight days after the F.I.R., in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973; that the Medical Examination Report does not corroborate the allegation of rape, specifically noting "no injury" and stating the "hymen is healed"; that there are vast contradictions in the statements of the complainant and her witnesses; and finally, that the appellant has no criminal history and has been in continuous judicial custody since 15.05.2025. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not effectively contradict the specific factual submissions regarding the delay in alleging rape, the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anshuman Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Raj Kumar Maurya .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) contradictions in the statements, and the contents of the medical report. He submitted that the record shows no commission of rape was alleged in the complainant's initial statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. However, he pointed out that the later statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 does substantiate the allegation that rape was committed. The learned A.G.A. also concedes that the medical report notes that the hymen was healed, and the appellant has no criminal history. Considering the totality of the circumstances, particularly the contradictory nature of the prosecution story, the lack of corroboration of the grave allegation of rape in the medical evidence at this stage, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, and the fact that the appeal against the rejection of bail is the statutory right of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Rae Bareli, is set aside. Let the appellant, Raj Kumar Maurya, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 169 of 2025 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following additional conditions: (1) 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 CRLA No. 2237 of 2025 2 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.PC. 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. 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. October 31, 2025 Haseen U. CRLA No. 2237 of 2025 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench