Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121705 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4222 of 2025 Appellant :- Sandeep Lodhi @ Sandeep Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Roopesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent no.2. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Sandeep Lodhi @ Sandeep Kumar with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Bail Application No. 624 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2025 under Sections 89, 115 (2) BNS and Section 3(2)(v), 3 (2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Radha Nagar, District- Fatehpur. 3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that the victim aged about 21 years, daughter of the informant, eloped with main accused Sanjay Lodhi, who enticed her away on 22.12.2024. Search was made by the informant but failed. Subsequently on 13.2.2025 the victim suo moto returned to her house. FIR was lodged on 14.2.2025 against the named accused persons Sanjay Lodhi and the present appellant was not named in the FIR. 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that no offence of committing rape with the prosecutrix has been committed by the present appellant. In the statement of the victim made under Section 180 and 183 BNSS the victim herself has narrated the story wherein the main allegation of doing sexual exploitation of the victim was committed by Sanjay Lodhi, who happens to be the brother of the present appellant. The only role assigned to the appellant is that he assisted the main accused in terminating the pregnancy of the victim which was an improvement in the prosecution story. Since the offence of rape has not been committed by the present accused appellant he is entitled for bail by allowing the present criminal appeal. The 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. Appellant is in jail since 5.4.2025 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 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 dated 25.4.2025. It is further submitted that the medicine to terminate the pregnancy was administered by the present appellant to the victim of this case and specific statement in this regard is found in the statement under Section 183 BNSS made by the victim herself but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the offence of committing the rape on false pretext of marriage was not alleged against the present appellant and he made no physical relations with the victim of this case. 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 also keeping in view the role assigned to the present appellant, incarceration period clean criminal record of the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 :- 24.7.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad