HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7725 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA as well as perused the entire record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Deepak Kashyap @ Lallu to set aside the bail rejection order dated 09.07.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Kanpur Nagar in Second Bail Application No. 2534 of 2025 in S.T. No. 402 of 2024 (Deepak Kashyap vs State of U.P) arising out of Case Crime No.23 of 2024, under Sections 384, 376 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 and 3(2)5(ka) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kidwai Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case. 3. As per prosecution version, the impugned FIR was lodged by the informant/respondent no.2 against the appellant with the allegation since last five months physical relation was made by the appellant by way of cheating because she met with the appellant five months ago in a fair price shop, where appellant stated that he know a baba who can help her to be pregnant and Rs.20,000/- alongwith original Aadhar Card was demanded, thereby she was carried by the appellant in a hotel and physical relationship was made without her wishes by taking Rs.20,000/- as well as Aadhar Card and video clip also has been made and threaten by the appellant to viral if she share to other, it will be viral. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Kumar, Jai Prakash Prasad, Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Priti Choudhary Deepak Kashyap @ Lallu .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P.And Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant submits 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. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the impugned FIR is delayed about 5 months but no plausible explanation regarding delay has been mentioned. The victim is a married lady. He submits that as per FIR as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim is a consenting party, therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC, is made out against the appellant. As per medical, there is no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. There are major contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that there are 11 witnesses and only six witnesses have been examined before the trial court, therefore, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 11.2.2024 having no criminal history. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Priti Choudhary, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail. 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 as well as victim is a consenting party, 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 bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 9. Let the appellant- Deepak Kashyap @ Lallu, involved in aforesaid CRLA No. 7725 of 2025 2 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 19, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 7725 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad