HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2248 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Vide order dated 24.07.2025, notice has been issued to opposite parties and as per office report dated 22.09.2025, the same has been served on opposite parties nos. 2 and 3. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 is present nor any counter on their behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 1612 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0016 of 2025, under Sections 87, 64(1) of BNS and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the FIR is lodged with delay of 2 days and there is no eye witness of the incident. He further submits that alleged victim is major and she had stated that she loves the appellant and knows him since last one year. He further submits that this is a case of consensual relationship. He next submits that the victim had travelled with the appellant to several places but she did not raise any alarm. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 22.02.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall fully cooperate with the trial. He Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Trinetra Shankar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Wahid .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant is involved in committing the offence and, as such, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the FIR is lodged after two days of the incident; there is no eye witness account; as per the statement of the victim, she voluntarily went alongwith the appellant and having love affair with him; she did not raise any alarm during her travel with the appellant; it also transpires that physical relationship, established by the victim with the appellant, was consensual; the appellant is languishing in jail since 22.02.2025 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 1612 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0016 of 2025, under Sections 87, 64(1) of BNS and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Wahid be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). CRLA No. 2248 of 2025 2 (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 shall 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.PC. 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. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order. October 14, 2025 kkv/ CRLA No. 2248 of 2025 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench