Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112603 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4336 of 2024 Appellant :- Lav Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Yadav,Devendra Kumar Mishra,Rajesh Yadav,Vandana Rai 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 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Lav Kumar with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 265 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dadon, District Aligarh. 2. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none is present for the opposite party no.2. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 20.07.2023 at about 4.00 P.M. the accused Lav Kumar enticed away to the victim aged about 18 and half years, daughter of the informant and an F.I.R. was lodged on 26.07.2023 under Section 366 I.P.C., Police Station Dadon, District Aligarh. Subsequently the victim was recovered on 11.10.2023 by the police and charge sheet was submitted under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is absolutely false and fabricated. It is next submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship with the victim who is major lady. It is next submitted that the victim of this case on her own will and consent left her house and went with the appellant on several places. Physical relation took place between them but subsequently after lodging of the F.I.R. when the police came to the house of the victim, she made some adverse statement against the appellant under Section 161 Cr4.P.C. and subsequently under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that there is no medical report of the victim on record and she was not got medically examined by any doctor. No complaint was ever made by the victim when she was taken from Aligarh to Kasganj and then to Jammu Kashmir and she never raised noise during this period. It is further submitted that the victim also stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was assaulted by the accused appellant but however, no such injury report is on record. It is next 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. Appellant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2023 having no criminal history to his credit. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the factual aspect of the case that the victim is major lady and during course of journey she never raised noise and she never made any complaint against the appellant who by force made physical relation with her. It is submitted that the victim is member of SC/ST community. 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, role of the appellant and no criminal history of the appellant, this 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 Lav Kumar involved in the 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). 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 :- 14.7.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad