Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11513 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8236 of 2024 Appellant :- Deepak Patel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vipin Gangwar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Deepak Patel with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 25.7.2024 passed by the Incharge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bareilly in Bail Application No.2594 of 2024. 3. The FIR discloses the prosecution case that on 9.6.2024 at about 3.30 pm the present appellant after entering into the house of the informant hurled abuses by caste related remarks and also threatened the victim to marry with him and prior to the said incident on 20.5.2024 at about 10.00 am she was also taken by the present appellant and two other unknown persons in a car and an attempt to rape was made with her. FIR was lodged on 10.6.2024 and investigation started and now the charge sheet has been submitted. 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 the whole prosecution story is a bogus story. The prosecutrix of this case is a major girl and both were having consensual relations. It is also submitted that the incident relating to 9.6.2024 is said to be committed in the house of the informant, which was not a place of public view. It is further submitted that on the earlier occasion only attempt to rape has been alleged in the FIR with the victim of this case but however, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim developed a story that rape was committed with her. It is also submitted that this is a major contradictions in the FIR version and statement made by the victim herself. It is also submitted that the victim of this case is herself the informant but for the reasons best known to the prosecution the incident of rape has been disclosed in the FIR. It is also submitted that the appellant has explained the criminal history of three cases in the affidavit. 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 7.7.2024. 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 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 dated 25.7.2024 but however he could not dispute the factual aspect of this matter that in the FIR only attempt to rape has been alleged whereas in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has made an improvement and it has been submitted that rape was committed with her on 20.5.2024. 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, severity of punishment and also keeping in view the contradictory statements of the victim herself and the contents of the FIR, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is 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 Patel involved in Case Crime No. 269 of 2024 under Sections 364, 376, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Bithri Chainpur, District - Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 :- 23.1.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad