HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6315 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the 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- Ravi Saini to set-aside the bail rejection order dated 20.06.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act Moradabad in Case Crime No. 316 of 2025, Under Section-323, 376, 506 I.P.C. and section 67A I.T. Act and 3(1)(da) 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of trail before the court below. 3. As per prosecution story, it is alleged in the first information report that the informant is a government teacher and she has broken off her relationship with her husband. After the separation from her husband, the friends of her husband namely, Ravi Saini/appellant started visiting the informant's house by giving the false promise of marriage to the informant and started pressurizing her to have physical relations with him by talking of marriage, when the informant refused, he started threatening to kill the informant and her children. It is further alleged that on 05.05.2024 at around 10:00 pm, the appellant came to the informant's house and started pressuring her to have a forced relationship with him, when the informant refused, he assaulted the informant and raped her forcefully and made a video of the informant while raping her. It is also alleged that the appellant started blackmailing the informant and threatened her that either she has a relationship with him or else he will ruin her life by making her videos and photos viral. It is further alleged that the appellant has always been insulting Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Archana Singh, G.A., Saurabh Pratap Singh Ravi Saini .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) the informant by using casteist words. The appellant keeps sending his own edited photos with the informant to the informant's relatives. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR is delayed about 1 year and there is no explanation for the said delay. He further submits that the appellant is unmarried aged about 30 years and the informant is major aged about 42 years and both are well known to each other and a fruitful relation has been developed between informant and appellant and they were talking on mobile phone and used to meet and both are having consensual relationship and therefore the entire prosecution case is relating to consensual relationship and there is no any abscene video and photo is available and the appellant has not viral such type of photo or video in the social media at any point of time and as such, no offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 67A I.T. is made out against the appellant. Further submission is 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 17.5.2025 having no criminal history. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS has supported the prosecution story. The appellant has viral her photos and videos on instragram and sent to her relatives and abused her castes related words. Prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant, hence, the appellant is not entitled for bail and the present bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. September 12, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 6315 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad