Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11482 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8019 of 2024 Appellant :- Amit Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Aman Patel,G.A.,Neeraj Singh Yadav 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 Amit Kumar Singh against the bail rejection order dated 26.7.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi in case crime no. 219 of 2024 under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3 (1)(r), 3 (1)(s) 3(2)(v) & 3 (2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Baragaon, District- Varanasi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. As per prosecution case concealing the fact of his first marriage the present accused appellant enticed the victim and also performed marriage through a notorial stamp and they were living as husband and wife. Subsequently, the victim came to know that he is already married having two kids as well. FIR was lodged and charge sheet was submitted in this matter. 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 it is a case of consensual relationship between the two major persons of opposite sex. It is also submitted that the victim of this case was very well known to the fact of earlier marriage of the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant was never cheated the victim and no rape was committed with her as the relations between the two were consensual. It is also submitted that the present appellant has one criminal history of minor sections. 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 10.6.2024. 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 and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and it has been submitted that 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 26.7.2024. It is further submitted that from the materials collected by the I.O. and available on record it is clear that the victim of the case was never known to the fact that the present appellant is already a married person and concealing this fact physical relations were developed by the appellant with victim. It is further submitted that since the physical relations were made by the appellant by concealing the factum of his marriage and having two issues as well, the present case falls within the category of 376 I.P.C. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix of this case belongs to the marginal Section of the society and is a member of SC/ST community. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Prima facie, it appears that by concealing the factum of first marriage the accused appellant developed physical relations with the victim and also performed the alleged marriage through notorial stamp with the victim of this case, who is a member of SC/ST community. Charge sheet has already been filed against the appellant after collecting the sufficient evidence by the I.O. 8. Hence, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad