Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51247 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3100 of 2025 Appellant :- Sugreev Rajbhar Alias Abhishek Rajbar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amrendra Nath Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Singh Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Sugreev Rajbhar Alias Abhishek Rajbar with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.3.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no.40 of 2025 under Sections 64, 351(2), 352 of BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Devgaon, District Azamgarh. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 4. The prosecution has come forward with a case that on the false pretext of marriage, the present appellant made and developed physical relations with the major victim which continued for a period of about three years and when she asked to marry, he refused and also hurled abuses by caste related remarks. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted. 5. 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 it is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex. It is also submitted that both the persons are ready and willing to marry with each other and even in the short counter affidavit field today on behalf of the opposite party no.2 it has been specifically averred that when the informant / victim met with the accused appellant in jail, he is ready to marry with her and not only this both the families are also agree for the same. F.I.R. in this case was lodged in a state of grudge and anguish on the part of the victim / informant and now they have no grudge with each other and are ready and willing to marry and live with each other. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant is in jail since 7.2.2025. 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. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also admitted the aforesaid fact that both the parties are now ready and willing to marry with each other. Since there was denial on the part of the appellant to marry with the victim of this case, F.I.R. was lodged but now the controversy has come to an end, however, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that physical relation was made by the appellant with the victim of this case on false pretext of marriage and subsequently he refused. Offence is very serious. 7. 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. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the fact that it appears to be a consenting relationship between the two major persons and both had been living for a period of about three years as husband and wife and are also ready to marry with each other, 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in aforesaid Case Crime Number 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). Within one month from the date of release from jail, the accused appellant shall perform marriage with the victim of this case and proof thereof shall be produced/filed before the trial court by way of an affidavit. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (iii). The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iv). The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (v). 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. (vi). 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. 11. 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 :- 9.4.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad