Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32181 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 480 of 2025 Appellant :- Kartar Singh alias Raja Sengar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga,Manglam Pandey,Tarun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Surat Patel Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. None is present for the informant / opposite party no.2 even in the revised call. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Kartar Singh alias Raja Sengar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.255 of 2024 under Sections 328, 376, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Badagaon, District Jhansi. 3. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 4. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that when the lady prosecutrix went to the Dhaba of the accused appellant for lunch, some intoxicant was administered to her by the present accused appellant in the cold drink and she became unconscious and in that state, rape was committed with her by the appellant. The occurrence happened in the month of May, 2023 in district Jhansi. Subsequently the prosecutrix came to district Orai and on 7.3.2024, the appellant again visited her rented house and by threatening her to make the obscene photographs / video viral, rape was again committed with her by the present accused appellant. However, F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 30.8.2024 and now after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. 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 also submitted that the I.O. of this case has not visited the place of occurrence and no proper site plan has been prepared by the I.O. It is also submitted that when rape was committed with the prosecutrix on the second time, the owner of the house where she was living on rent has not been interrogated by the I.O. It is also submitted that the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version. There is no witness of the said occurrence as to when the intoxicant was administered to the victim of this case. It is also submitted that the prosecution has literally failed to explain the inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and from the very inception of the occurrence dated 1.5.2023, F.IR. was lodged on 30.8.2024. 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), Jhansi. 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. Appellant is languishing in jail since 1.9.2024. He is having criminal history of only one case which has been explained. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and 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. The bail application of the appellant is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 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, 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 Kartar Singh alias Raja Sengar involved in case crime no.255 of 2024 under Sections 328, 376, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Badagaon, District Jhansi 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 :- 5.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad