HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3115 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party(s) despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State and also the order of this Court dated 15.11.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, 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 08.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 3412 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2013, under Sections- 376-D IPC and Section 3(2)(v) S.C/S.T Act, P.S.- Nawabganj, District- Pratapgarh. 4. While pressing the instant appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that co-accused/Hansraj @ Natli, who was summoned by the trial court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has been enlarged on bail in terms of the order dated 20.06.2025, corrected vide orders dated 01.07.2025 and 04.07.2025, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1841 of 2025. 5. It is further stated that the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail as he has also been summoned by the trial court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 6. It is also stated that no purpose would be served in keeping the appellant in jail as the FIR related to the case in issue was lodged on 26.08.2013 and the charge sheet was filed before the trial court in the year 2014 itself and also that the appellant has been summoned by the trial court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and in this view of the matter, the custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Dinesh Kumar Yadav .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 7. It is also stated that the story of the prosecution is completely false as there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution so as to support the allegations related to the offence under Section 376-D IPC. 8. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also that the appellant has also been summoned by the trial court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 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. 9. 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 including that co-accused/Hansraj @ Natli, who was also summoned by the trial court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has already been granted bail by this Court. 10. 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 including co-accused/Hansraj @ Natli has already been granted bail by this Court. 11. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) of the victim 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. 12. The impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 3412 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2013, under Sections- 376-D IPC and Section 3(2)(v) S.C/S.T Act, P.S.- Nawabganj, District- Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside. 13. Let the appellant- Dinesh Kumar Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be 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. 3115 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. 14. 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 24, 2025 Arun/- CRLA No. 3115 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench