HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3166 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2 despite service of notice, as appears from Office Report dated 04.11.2025 and order of this Court dated 10.11.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 10.11.2025, which says "It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in the case, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the opposite party No.2 and the matter would be heard and decided on merits and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 3. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2837 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 407 of 2025, under Sections- 69, 115(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections- 3(1)r, 3(1)s, 3(2)(v) S.C/S.T Act, P.S.- Safdarganj, District- Barabanki. 4. While pressing the instant appeal seeking bail, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant having no criminal history is languishing in jail since 21.08.2025 and the charge sheet has already been filed and in this view of the matter the appellant is not in a position to influence the witnesses of prosecution or tamper the evidence already available on record of the trial court. 5. Further submissions that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR in issue, basis of pending criminal proceedings, against the appellant to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the appellant established physical relations with the victim/complainant are taken on its face value then in that eventuality, the possibility of conviction of appellant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Raj Kumar Lodh .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) 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. 6. It is further stated that taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also that the appellant is in jail since 21.08.2025, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel. 8. 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., medical report as well as other relevant documents and also the statement(s) of prosecutrix/victim recorded in terms of Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. 9. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. and contents of the FIR as also 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. 10. The impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2837 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 407 of 2025, under Sections- 69, 115(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections- 3(1)r, 3(1)s, 3(2)(v) S.C/S.T Act, P.S.- Safdarganj, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside. 11. Let the appellant- Raj Kumar Lodh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member) each of 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. CRLA No. 3166 of 2025 2 (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. 12. 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 27, 2025 Arun/- CRLA No. 3166 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench