Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19429 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6884 of 2024 Appellant :- Arun Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dileep Singh Yadav,Tahir Husain Farooqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no.2, no one has appeared on her behalf. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Arun with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 9.5.2024 passed by Addl. District & Session Judge, Court No.2 / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.99 of 2024 under Section 376-D IPC, Section 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 5. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 1.4.2024 at 9:00 P.M., when the prosecutrix had gone to market, the present accused appellant Arun alongwith the co-accused Pradeep lured her to lend grocery items and on this false pretext they took her behind the shop and committed rape upon her. F.I.R. was lodged. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the real story behind the incident is that the husband of the lady informant, who happens to be a dreaded criminal, was detained in jail by the police and the lady informant / victim had some suspicion that the named accused persons were the mastermind for the detention of her husband. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness of the occurrence whereas it is said to be committed at a public place. It is also submitted that the present appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is languishing in jail since 5.4.2024. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Dehat. It is further submitted that the Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the present appeal and it has been contended that there is no possibility of any false implication of the accused appellant even if the informant was under impression that both the accused persons were playing the game in respect of detention of her husband but however it is also quite possible that rape was committed by the present appellant alongwith the other co-accused due to the animosity between the parties. It is also submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. in cases relating to sexual offence is not material. It is also 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. It is also submitted that rape was committed with the victim on the false pretext of providing some household items. It is also submitted that the victim belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. Offence is very grave and serious in nature and the prayer for rejection of the bail application and dismissal of appeal as well has been made. 8. 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. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the statement of some of the witnesses who corroborate the prosecution case in material terms and also keeping in view the nature of the offence, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record, it appears that the court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 9.5.2024 is affirmed. No ground is made out to release the accused appellant on bail. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad