HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6300 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in the Court, the same is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA as well as perused the entire record. 3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Sohan to set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 774 of 2025 (Sohan Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 171 of 2025, under Sections 87, 69, B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station- Mehdawal, District- Sant Kabir Nagar with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of the trial before court below. 4. As per prosecution story, the informant lodged the impugned FIR against the appellant and one other co-accused person alleging therein that his daughter aged about 22 years on 06.05.2025 at about 9.00 pm went for natural call but she did not return back and when he searched her then he came into knowledge that the appellant has enticed away his daughter by misguiding for the purpose of marriage and in the said incident co-accused Ram Milan has helped him. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant submits that the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sohan .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The appellant is a married person having two children. As per FIR, the victim is a major aged about 22 years. As per statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the victim went to Delhi and other places with the appellant on her own sweet and the appellant has established physical relation with her on the assurance of marriage and thereafter, the appellant refused the same. He further submits that there is some money dispute between the parties due to which, the appellant has been falsely implicated. As per medical, there is no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. There are major contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 & 183 B.N.S.S.. As per statement of the victim, victim is a consenting party, therefore, no offence under Section 69 BNS is made out against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 13.5.2025 having no criminal history. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 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 as well as victim is a consenting party, 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- Sohan, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the CRLA No. 6300 of 2025 2 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. September 23, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 6300 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad