HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2335 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1.Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2- by Shri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 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 order dated 17.07.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.1881 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0091/2024, under Sections 376-D, 354Kha, 323, 504, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V), 3 (1)(Ka) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Gangaghat, District - Unnao. 4. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case and the allegations in the F.I.R. dated 22.02.2024 lodged at Police Station - Gangaghat, District - Unnao by the opposite party No.2 (complainant/victim) is completely false and bogus. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that according to the allegations leveled by the opposite party No.2 in the F.I.R. four named accused including appellant and 4-5 unknown accused committed crime to attract the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. on 20.12.2023 and the same have been leveled just to create pressure in the civil proceedings i.e. Suit No.631 of 2021 in which the main relief of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Vineet Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Anil Kumar Pandey, Jay Krishna Shukla Manoj Kumar Nishad @ Manoj Nishad .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) cancellation of sale deed has been sought. 6. It is further submitted that the story of the prosecution is false and concocted can be deduced from the medical opinion, according to which the doctor concerned found no injury over the body of the victim/prosecutirx, which ought to in view of the allegations leveled against the four named accused and 4-5 unknown accused. 7. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet against the appellant has already been filed and in this view of the matter it can be inferred that the appellant is not in a position to tamper the evidence of the prosecution as also to influence the main witnesses of the prosecution. 8. The further submission is that the F.I.R. was lodged with a huge delay of about 02 months which is also fatal to the story of the prosecution. 9. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant, who is in jail since 25.06.2025 and having criminal history of 06 cases which has been explained in paragraph 22 of the rejoinder affidavit, is liable to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 10. Learned A.G.A. as also learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant for bail. However, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel. 11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents. 12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed. 13. Order dated 17.07.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.1864 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0091/2024, under Sections 376-D, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V), 3 (1) Ka of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Gangaghat, District - Unnao is hereby set aside. CRLA No. 2335 of 2025 2 14. Let the appellant - Manoj Kumar Nishad @ Manoj Nishad be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (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 will 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. 15. 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. 16. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. November 12, 2025 ML/- CRLA No. 2335 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench