HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2215 of 2024 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Aniruddha Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the material available on record. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred assailing the impugned order dated 14.06.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 516 of 2024, by the court of learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Unnao in Case Crime No. 0048 of 2024, under Section 376, Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act and Section 67-A of Information Technology (Amendment Act, 2008), Police Station Behatamujawar, District Unnao. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the village of the accused- appellant is 12 km. away from the place of occurrence i.e. mango orchard field but due to criminal conspiracy, he has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that no mark of injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix at the time of her medical examination. Apart from this, no symptom was also found that prosecutrix was tortured. As per the counter affidavit, the alleged video clip was prepared by some other person. There is rivalry between the present appellant and Ankit Singh and a civil litigation is also going on between Ankit Singh and the present appellant. The appellant is languishing in jail since 22.02.2024. The will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and will cooperate during trial. Therefore, submission is that the appellant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that as per the FIR, the appellant has committed rape on the prosecutrix after giving her some intoxicated drink. He Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mohd. Salman, Ana Fatma, Dharmendra Kumar Misra, Mukhtar Ahamad Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Deepak Dwivedi .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) further submits the prosecutrix has given her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. consistently that the appellant has given intoxicated drink and, thereafter, committed rape upon her and also prepared the video clip which has been made viral. He also submits that the mobile has also been recovered. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, it transpires that as per the FIR, when the prosecutrix went to the mango orchard field to pick up the wood for preparing the food on 19.02.2024 at 12:00 p.m., the appellant reached there and gave her cold drink after mixing some liquor and when she became in the stage of intoxication, the appellant-accused committed rape upon her and prepared the video clip and thereafter made it viral. The prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. has consistently corroborated the version of the FIR and stated that the appellant has committed rape on her after giving her intoxicated drink and also made a video clip. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has given the statement before the Magistrate that when she went to the mango orchard field to pick up the wood, the appellant came there and gave her cold drink after mixing intoxication and, thereafter, committed rape upon her and also prepared the video clip. Although, in her medical examination, the doctor has not found any visible injury but the prosecutrix has given consistent statements and made the allegation of rape against the appellant from very inception. Considering the entire facts and material available on record and gravity of offence, no case for bail is made out. The instant appeal is dismissed, accordingly. October 7, 2025 kkv/ CRLA No. 2215 of 2024 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench