Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123941 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6534 of 2025 Appellant :- Aaftab Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Sadab Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. As per instruction received by the learned A.G.A. notice upon the informant has been served. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Aaftab Khan with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.7.2025 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in Bail Application No. 81 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 78 of 2025 under Sections 137 (2), 87, 351 (2) of BNS & Section 3(2)(v-a) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kalpi, District- Jalaun. 3. FIR was lodged against unknown accused persons with the allegations that minor daughter of the informant left her house on the pretext that she was going to her friend and in the same night the wife of the informant received a mobile call from her daughter stating that she is travelling in the train Surat Bhojpuri. After lodging of the FIR investigation started and statement of minor victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS was recorded wherein she stated that the accused Aftab forcefully took her to Surat but after lodging of the FIR he came back and she further stated that no physical or sexual assault was committed with her by the accused and further she did not give her consent for her external or internal medical examination. Charge sheet was submitted under Sections 137 (2), 87, 351 (2) of BNS & Section 3(2)(v-a) SC/ST Act. 4. 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the allegations made by the victim against the accused appellant is totally wrong. She was a consenting party and on her own free will she had gone with the accused. It is also submitted that as per allegations made in the FIR the present accused appellant never took away the victim from her house but she left her house on her own accord and nothing was found during investigation regarding any sexual offence committed by the accused appellant to the victim of this case. The trial Court 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. Appellant is in jail since 11.4.2025 having no criminal antecedents. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 3.7.2025. It is further submitted that victim is a minor girl and she was enticed away by the appellant and thereby committed heinous crime. 6. 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. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, clean antecedents and the fact that no physical or sexual assault was made by the victim of this case. the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 9. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 10. 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 :- 28.7.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad