Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70007 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4026 of 2025 Appellant :- Amit Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur,Manish Kumar,Naman Kishor Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. By way of the present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act the appellant - Amit Sharma has approached this Court against the second bail rejection order dated 27.3.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Budaun and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 412 of 2024 under Sections 376(2)(n), 385, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(d), (dha) of SC/ST Act and 67-A I.T. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Budaun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The previous criminal appeal filed by the appellant praying for bail and setting aside the bail rejection order passed by the Court concerned has been decided on merits by this Court and it has been dismissed vide order dated 11.3.2025. 4. After dismissal of criminal appeal against first bail rejection order, evidence of some other witnesses has been recorded before the trial court is the new and additional ground in this criminal appeal. 5. It is submitted that at the time of disposal of first criminal appeal by the this Court vide order dated 13.3.2025 statement of only two prosecution witnesses was recorded before the trial court but now five prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is also submitted that the appellant is in jail since 31.7.2024. The learned trial court 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 AGA opposing the prayer 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 and appeal deserves to be dismissed. Previous appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed on merits. 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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role of the appellant, severity of punishment and the fact that at the time of disposal of the first criminal appeal evidence of victim was recorded, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, it makes no difference that after examination of the victim before the trial court how many witnesses have been produced and examined before the Court, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 10. It is made clear that the submissions / observation made in this order are only for deciding the bail application and the trial court shall not be influenced in any way with the said observations / submissions while deciding the trial. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad