Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117739 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3154 of 2025 Appellant :- Himanshu @ Kalu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jayant Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Himanshu @ Kalu with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.3.2025 passed by Addl. District & Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Sambhal at Chandausi and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.2 of 2025 under Sections 64(1), 333 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 1.1.2025 at about 2:30 A.M. in the night when the prosecutrix alongwith her family members was sleeping, the present accused appellant and one unknown person jumped over the wall and entered into her house and the accused appellant raped her on gunpoint. On hearing the noise, her husband and neighbours woke up on which the accused persons hurling abuses fled away. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused appellant. 4. 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. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this case. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged on the basis of false and fabricated facts. The whole prosecution story is false and fabricated. No offence of rape or of any kind was committed by the appellant against the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that in compliance of the order of this Court, the statement of P.W.1 / the victim was recorded before the trial court on 9.6.2025 wherein she was declared hostile by the prosecution as she resiled from her previous statement. In the said statement, she has categorically denied for any incident likewise. She has also stated that in the pressure of her husband, she has lodged the F.I.R. in this matter and she herself lodged F.I.R. against her own husband for this fraudulent act. She has also admitted that some litigation regarding the money dispute is pending between the appellant and her own husband. She has further stated that no physical offence was made with her by the appellant. The statement made by the prosecutrix falsifies the prosecution story. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 9.1.2025. Criminal history of the appellant has been explained. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the present appeal but however could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that in the statement made before the trial court the victim has not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also did not oppose the present appeal. 6. 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. 7. 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 and also considering the statement made by the victim herself before the trial court wherein she has not supported the prosecution version, 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant Himanshu @ Kalu involved in Case Crime No.2 of 2025 under Sections 64(1), 333 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal 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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad