Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115022 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 772 of 2025 Appellant :- Prashant Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Prashant Kumar with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 4.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hathras and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 166 of 2024 under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sadabad, District Hathras. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the opposite party no.2 despite service of notice. 3. The prosecution has come forward with the allegation that on 25.3.2024 at 4.00 p.m. when the married victim, who belongs to SC/ST community, had gone to the field to ease the present appellant came from behind and rape was committed with her and at the same time teeth biting was also made by the present appellant.The victim informed the incident to her husband and F.I.R. was lodged same day and investigation started, which culminated into charge sheet and trial is going on. 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. It is further submitted that both sides are on inimical terms and this fact has been admitted by the victim herself in her statement given to the I.O. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. In the medical examination the injury caused by teeth biting has been found as simple injury, however the doctor has found no sign of rape in the internal examination of the victim. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is that the offence was committed in a field nearby the house of the victim and at that time some boys were also playing there, as narrated by the victim herself in her deposition as PW-2 before the trial court. It is also submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the trial of this case is going on and is pending at the stage of evidence. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is in jail since 26.3.2024. It is also submitted that since the victim has been examined before the trial court, there is no possibility to influence the victim of this case by the accused appellant. The Court concerned 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. 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. It is also submitted that allegation of commission of rape with the victim by the present appellant is not a false story and there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant at this stage. 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, clean criminal record and detention period of the appellant and also the fact that the offence is said to be committed in an open field in day time which was situated nearby the house of the victim, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned 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 bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in the 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. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad