Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9044 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4428 of 2024 Appellant :- Vipin Yadav @ Vipan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhavisya Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shailesh Kumar Mishra,Vivek Kumar Sharma 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 Vipin Yadav @ Vipan against the bail rejection order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Firozabad in case crime no. 186 of 2023 under Section 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Singhi, District- Firozabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. On 13.10.2023 about 2.45 pm the victim/ niece of the informant had gone to the field but was informed lying injured in the field of Manoj at about 4.00 pm. The informant rushed to the spot and found her niece in injured condition and it appeared that probably rape was committed to her. She was admitted to the hospital. FIR was lodged and subsequently charge sheet in this matter was submitted. 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 prosecution story is not natural and plausible. There are material contradictions in the statements of victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the narration made in the FIR. It is further submitted that the victim of this case is said to be the mentally retarded girl, who was almost unable to speak. She never told the name of the appellant to anyone as an assailant. It is also submitted that the identification of the present accused was made only on the basis of a single photograph which was shown to the victim and no other photograph of any other person was placed before her. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. The medical report also does not offer any help to the prosecution. 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 19.10.2023. 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 and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and it has been submitted that that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the basic and material facts regarding the incident have been properly explained by the victim of this case. The prosecutrix is almost unable to speak and is a mentally retarded girl hence,the photograph of the accused was shown to her which she identified as a principal offender. It is true that the appellant is not named in the FIR but the informant had a suspicion that the offence might have been committed by the present appellant who also used to go to the field when the victim went there and that it why photograph of the present appellant was shown to her and she clearly identified him. It is also submitted that the opinion of the doctor cannot prevail over the specific statement made by the prosecutrix herself. Since the appellant was the native of the same village where prosecutrix resides he very well knew that she was a member of SC/ST community. The offence is very serious and grave. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 1.2.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, rape has been committed with a mentally retarded girl who belongs to weaker section of the society and is a member of SC/ST community, 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. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad