Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33648 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 532 of 2025 Appellant :- Anwar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dr. Kamlesh Kumar,Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the certified copy of the charge-sheet, is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Anwar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.531 of 2024 under Sections 87, 64 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Didauli, District Amroha. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record. 4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that in the night of 19.10.2024, a missing report of the victim was lodged by her niece Muskan and on 20.10.2024, in the morning, when the victim returned to her house she told that Anwar, the present appellant had taken her away. After lodging of the F.I.R., statement of the victim was recorded under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. She was medically examined externally and refused to be medically examined internally. However, subsequently her internal medical examination was also performed. 5. 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 whole prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex. Appellant never kidnapped or abducted the victim of this case, rather she on her own free will and consent went with the appellant and physical relations were made between the two. Victim was never pressurized by the appellant to make physical relations with him. It is also submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Amroha. It is further submitted that 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 also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2024 having no criminal antecedents to his credit. 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. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been vehemently submitted that in her statement recorded under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. the prosecution case has been well corroborated by the victim of this case. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 and the fact that as per prosecutrix herself, on some prior occasions as well the appellant had visited the house of the prosecutrix but inspite of that she left her house with the appellant and came back in the next morning, prima facie it appears to be a case of consensual relationship, 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the appellant Anwar involved in case crime no.531 of 2024 under Sections 87, 64 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Didauli, District Amroha 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. 11. 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 :- 6.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad