HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6272 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. Perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri in Bail Application No. 888 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 351(3) BNS and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Aunchha, District Mainpuri. 3. As per the F.I.R. lodged on 20.04.2025 by the prosecutrix (wife of Harveer Jadhit Jatav, resident of Nagla Moti, P.S. Aunchha, District Mainpuri), that on 17.04.2025 at about 1:30 p.m., while she was returning with her minor son from a shop, the appellant Ramji came on a motorcycle, stopped her, and told her to recover the money which her husband had borrowed. Trusting him, she sat on the motorcycle. The appellant took her near the canal, stopped the vehicle, and after taking out a country-made pistol, allegedly committed rape upon her against her will. Her child was present and crying. The appellant further threatened to kill her and her husband if she disclosed the incident. Initially, she did not inform her husband, but when the appellant allegedly started harassing her over phone, she disclosed the facts to her husband, whereafter the FIR was Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Vishwakarma, Sudhir Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Kumar Sharma, G.A. Ramji .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to a money dispute between the husband of the prosecutrix and the appellant. It is argued that the FIR was lodged after three days of the alleged incident without any convincing explanation. It is further submitted that as per the pathological examination report, no spermatozoa was seen on slide examination, which suggests that the incident of rape as alleged by the victim has not occurred. Counsel further contends that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The appellant is in jail since 21.04.2025, has explained his criminal history, and undertakes to abide by all conditions imposed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, relying on the victim's consistent statements and the corroborative testimony of her son and husband, but could not dispute the factual aspects pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the entire record including the impugned order, this Court finds that in view of the delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix, and medical evidence, a case for bail is made out. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 8. Let the appellant Ramji, involved in the 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 cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. CRLA No. 6272 of 2025 2 (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court. 10. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. September 11, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 6272 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad