Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37297 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8470 of 2024 Appellant :- Mukesh Dubey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Tiwari,Ajay Sengar,Vikrant Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Singh Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1.Supplementary affidavit filed today 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 - Mukesh Dubey with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 24.7.2024 passed by Addl. Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.409 of 2024 under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record. 4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the lady victim of this case had been living with her sister and was engaged in the catering business with the accused Mukesh Dubey, the contractor. One and half year before the lodging of the F.I.R. of this case, the said Mukesh Dubey took the victim to his house and after administering her some intoxicant in the cold drink and making her unconscious, committed rape with her and video thereof was also prepared. The accused appellant continued making physical relations with the victim by threatening her to make her video viral. On the false pretext of marriage, the accused appellant arranged a separate rented room for the victim and started living with her but he always avoided to marry her. Meanwhile the victim gave birth to a girl child as an outcome of their relationship and subsequently she came to know that the accused appellant is already a married person having children also. 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 prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the whole conduct of the prosecutrix is quite unnatural and not plausible. It is also submitted that the victim of this case was a major lady and it is a case of consensual relationship of two major persons of opposite sex. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that some intoxicant was administered by the appellant to the prosecutrix and then made her unconscious and committed rape upon her. The physical relations between the two were made and developed on the basis of free will and consent of the prosecutrix herself. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit and has been languishing in jail since 15.6.2024. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Jalaun. 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 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 respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that the offence of the accused appellant is very serious. On the false pretext of marriage, the accused appellant continued physical relations with the victim of this case and for the first time he committed rape with the victim after making her unconscious. It is also submitted that the accused appellant was a married person at the time of committing the offence which is alleged against him. One child has also born out as an outcome of their relationship. The accused appellant also threatened the victim to make her photographs and video viral. It is also submitted that the appellant committed the alleged offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record to the effect that the prosecutrix had been a consenting party with the accused appellant. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix belonged to a weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. Now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. Offence is very grave and serious in nature and the prayer for rejection of the bail application and dismissal of appeal as well has been made. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties, nature of offence, complicity of accused and taking into account all relevant facts of this matter, the conduct of the accused appellant, who very well knew his own marital status and despite that he made and continued physical relations with the lady victim who also gave birth to a child and also considering that it was not a case of mere live-in relationship but the prosecutrix was under bonafide impression which was made by the accused appellant himself that he was going to marry with her and also keeping in view of the fact that that the deceased belonged to a weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, this Court finds that no ground is made out to allow the appeal, set-aside the anticipatory bail rejection order and release the accused appellant on bail. The court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 24.7.2024 is affirmed. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad