Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93196 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4510 of 2025 Appellant :- Pappu @ Pushpendra Kumar Yogyik Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amar Singh Yadav,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kuldeep Kumar,Mohammad Danish,Mohammad Iliyas 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 Pappu @ Pushpendra Kumar Yogyik against the bail rejection order dated 29.3.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in case crime no. 59 of 2025 under Sections 328, 376 (2), 384, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Jalaun, District- Jalaun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecutrix who was the neighbourer of the accused appellant was administered some intoxicant and when she was unconscious physical relations were made by the accused appellant Pappu @ Pushpendra Kumar Yogyik and he also procured some obscene videos and photographs of the incident and on the basis of the same the victim was blackmailed by the accuse appellant. The victim is a married lady and for a period of about one year she was black mailed and physically molested by the accused appellant and when the same was made viral by the accused she ultimately lodged the FIR after about one year of the incident. After investigation charge sheet was submitted but however the prosecutrix refused to be medically examined. 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. 5. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution story is false and fabricated. The real facts of the matter is that the victim wanted to borrow Rs.5 lacs from the accused and when the said amount was not borrowed by the accused appellant the present false FIR was lodged against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is not natural and plausible. It is further submitted that the accused is having no criminal history to his credit. 6. 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 2.3.2025. 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. 7. 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. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 29.3.2025. It is further submitted that the story made by the accused appellant for borrowing the money is a false story and there is no basis of the same. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has fully corroborated the prosecution version. It is further submitted that she was not only physically molested by the accused appellant and rape was committed with her but the obscene photographs and videos were also procured by the accused appellant and made viral subsequently. It is further submitted that the pen drive containing the aforesaid obscene videos and photographs was collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation and it was perused by the I.O. as well and now it is made part of the case diary and requisite certificate under Section 67 I.T. Act has also been obtained by the I.O. It is further submitted that the victim is a married lady and there was no possibility of false implication of the accused. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 8. 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. 9. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record I find that the trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. 10. 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, 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. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad