HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7943 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for State. 2. As per report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this matter. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 19.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jhansi in Bail Application No. 1417 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2025, under sections 69, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and 3(2)5, 3(2)5A, 3(1)r, s and 3(1)W Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, at Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that victim is a widow lady. Considering her poverty and financial constraint, appellant used to help her. In meanwhile, both of them developed close and consensual relations. Certain dispute between them arose and consequently victim lodged an FIR against appellant alleging that he sexually exploited the victim on the pretext of false marriage. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he is entitled to bail. 5. Learned AGA for State has strongly opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that victim has supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNNS. Hence, he is not entitled for bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Chandra Jeet Singh, Ran Jeet Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Deendayal Kushwaha .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant- Deendayal Kushwaha involved in Case Crime No. 263 of 2025, under sections 69, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and 3(2)5, 3(2)5A, 3(1)r, s and 3(1)W Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, at Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 17, 2025 Mukesh CRLA No. 7943 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad