Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133238 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4366 of 2025 Appellant :- Sitaram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nisha Agrahari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Despite of notice, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant-Sitaram to set aside the order dated 17.04.2025 in Bail Application No. 515 of 2025 arising out of case crime No. 32 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)m, 352, 351(3) BNS and under section 3(2)(V), 3(1)D, 3(1)Dha S.C./S.T. Act and under section 66E I.T. Act, P.S. Bhabhani, District Sonbhadra. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record. 4. According to the prosecution case, the incident took place on 25.10.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 10.02.2025 after about three and half months without any plausible explanation. In the present case the victim is major aged about 25 years and the applicant is aged about 30 years, both are living in the same village, they have physical attraction between each other. So the O.P. No. 2 was consenting party as they were in physical relation for the last six years. The father of the victim was having the knowledge but victim was married with one Anil Kumar in the year 2023 and in December 2024 the victim had taken decision to separate with her husband and stared in living in relation with the applicant and wants to marry with the applicant. The applicant was also married person and having two children 5. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Due to performing the immediate marriage with the victim, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is aged about 25 years. No any medical report is supported the prosecution story. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 15.02.2025. Further submission is 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 A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail had have submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 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, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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 hereby set-aside. 10. Let the appellant-Sitaram 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) 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. 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 :- 6.8.2025 RPD Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad