Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131797 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4707 of 2025 Appellant :- Arvind Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Bal Mukund Singh,G.A.,Sunil Kumar Chaudhari Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant-Arvind to set aside the bail rejection order dated 02.05.2025 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act Amroha has rejected the bail application no.716 of 2025 of the appellant and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 351(2), 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 333, 110 BNS and Section 3(1) Da, 3 (1) Dha and 3(2) 5A SC/ST Act, P.S.Rajabpur, District Amroha. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and Ms. Nistha, holding brief of Mr. Bal Mukund Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 11.08.2024 at about 4.30 o'clock when the victim went to give grass to animal, the accused applicant Arvind and co-accused Nazim have forcibly caught her and committed rape upon her. It is alleged that the appellant has also committed maarpeet with the victim and her family members as a result of which they received injuries. 4. 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. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 11.08.2024 whereas the impugned FIR is said to have been lodged on 13.08.2024 i.e. after two days delayed for which no plausible explanation has been mentioned. The victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has herself admitted her age about 19 years and has further stated that she was in relationship with co-accused Nazim from one year ago whereas she has stated different version in her statement under Section 183 BNSS and has clearly stated that no such type of video has been viral. There are material contradictions in the statement of the victim. Further submission is that as per medical report, no mark of injury has been found on the body of the victim. The applicant being the friend of co-accused Nazim, has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is a student having no previous criminal antecedents. Further submission is that essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 14.08.2024. Further submission is 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 A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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. 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 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 9. Let the appellant-Arvind 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. 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 :- 5.8.2025 Ajeet Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad