Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140617 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6538 of 2025 Appellant :- Aasif Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shivajee Singh Sisodiya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Sri Sanjay Mishra "Gana" advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2 today, taken on record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant-Aasif to set aside the order dated 24.06.2025 in Bail Application No. 2847 of 2025 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No.260 of 2025, under Sections 87, 69, 319(2), 340(2) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Sanjay Mishra for respondent no. 2 and perused the entire record. 4. According to the prosecution case, the FIR of the incident has been lodged on the same day stating therein that when the informant has went for search for his daughter who is student of Government Degree College, she met with her on the road and road and said that one boy who stated himself a Hindu taken her in a hotel and made physical relation and thereafter she came to her knowledge that his name is Aasif. The age of the victim is 19 years and according to her statement recorded under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. the victim had left her parental house on her own free will. 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. It is further stated by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the statement of O.P. No. 2 her daughter was knowing to the appellant in the name of Aasif sine last 3-4 months which is also clear that same fact from the FIR. The victim is consenting party and she went with the appellant in a hotel on her sweet will. According to medical examination report no external or internal injury was found on the body of the victim. The victim is aged about 19 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 05.04.2025. 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. 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. 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-Aasif 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 :- 18.8.2025 RPD Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad