HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7089 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.01 of 2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.07.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jhansi in Bail Application No.1338 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.93 of 2025, under Sections 87, 352, 351 (3), 70(1) BNS, Police Station Lahchura, District Jhansi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State- respondent no.1, Mr. Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the entire record. 3. In short, according to the prosecution case, on 15.05.2025 at about 5.6 PM, when the victim was alone in her house, the co-accused Pushpendra entered her house and committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that accused Pushpendra has also threaten to kill the victim. It is further alleged that on 28.05.2025 at about 2.30 PM, the appellant Anikesh called the victim on her mobile to reach at Barua Sagar and when she reached at Barua Sagar at that time Anikesh came on his motorcycle and forcibly made the victim sit on his motorcycle and started leaving. After travelling some distance, he met another co-accused Pratap Dhimar who also made sit on his motorcycle and took the victim to a hotel in Orchha. It is further alleged that appellant Anikesh and co-accused Pratap Dhimar started doing obscene acts with the victim and forcibly threw the victim on the ground, stripped her naked and Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ruchita Jain Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Anikesh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) raped her one by one. After raping, appellant Anikesh and co-accused Pratap left the victim near the village Puchhi Karguwan and while leaving, accused persons kept threatening the victim that if she complained about this incident anywhere or took any legal action, they would kill her and her family. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. There is in ordinate delay in lodging the FIR for which no explanation has been mentioned. Victim is major and married lady. The victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, she has stated that on 15.05.2025, co-accused Pushpendra has committed rape upon her and thereafter on 28.05.2025, the appellant and co-accused Pratap Dheemar have committed rape upon her. As per statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS it appears that the victim is a consenting party. As per medical report, there is no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. Further submission is that trial has not been started as yet and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. Appellant is languishing in jail since 15.06.2025 having no previous criminal history. Further submission is 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 A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant. 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, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the CRLA No. 7089 of 2025 2 bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 9. Let the appellant-Anikesh, involved in 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 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. September 23, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 7089 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad