Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78697 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1582 of 2025 Appellant :- Mohit Saini Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dileep Chandra Mathur,Gaurav Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Despite service of notice, none is present for the informant / opposite party no.2 even in the revised call. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Mohit Saini with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.2.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bijnor and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.316 of 2024 under Sections 62, 64(1), 74, 351(2) BNS, Section 67 Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Nagina, District Bijnor. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 5. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the present appellant and the victim were known to each other and from the enticement of the appellant, the victim used to meet him and on one occasion, some obscene photographs of the victim were procured by the appellant and on the basis of threatening to make the said obscene photographs viral, rape was committed with the victim against her wishes. Further, such photographs were also made viral on facebook and instagram. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation, now charge-sheet has now been submitted in this matter. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this case. It is also submitted that the victim and the appellant both are major and whatsoever happened between the two was an outcome of free consent and free will of the victim herself. It is also submitted that the victim in her statement made under sections 180 and 183 BNSS has specifically denied for any rape with her and stated that no physical relations were made out between the two. However, she has affirmed the other allegations made in the F.I.R. itself. It is also submitted that no internal examination of the victim was conducted and she herself refused for her medical examination. It is also submitted that the electronic evidence has not been probably proved by the I.O. and no certificate under section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in this respect has been collected by the I.O. It is also submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Bijnor. It is further submitted that the Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 27.12.2024 having no criminal antecedents to his credit. 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the occurrence has been committed with the victim, who belongs to SC/ST community and she has also shown the screenshots of the alleged obscene photographs to the I.O. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 11. Let the appellant Mohit Saini involved in case crime no.316 of 2024 under Sections 62, 64(1), 74, 351(2) BNS, Section 67 Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Nagina, District Bijnor, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad