Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35165 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8570 of 2024 Appellant :- Kamil Khan Alias Shami Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Rejoinder 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 - Kamil Khan Alias Shami with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.8.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.2, Shahjahanpur and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.448 of 2024 under Sections 376, 323, 342, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record. 4. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the present accused appellant enticed away the victim lady of this case when she was going to her school and with the aid of other co-accused persons, he took the lady to a dark room where she was kept confined for 3 days and rape was committed to her during this period. Prior to that, an F.I.R. No.564 of 2023 under Section 366 IPC was also lodged by the family members of the victim lady against the present appellant for the offence committed by him. 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. The whole prosecution story is totally false and fabricated and does not find support even from the medical evidence. It is also submitted that after submission of the charge- sheet in this matter, the statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded before the trial court and while deposing as P.W.2, the victim of this case, did not corroborate the prosecution version so far as the role of present appellant is concerned. It is also submitted that in her testimony recorded before the trial court, the victim also resiled from her earlier statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and no allegation was made against the appellant for any of the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant with her. It is also submitted that the criminal history of one solitary case shown against the appellant has been explained. He is languishing in jail since 20.7.2024. 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), Shahjahanpur. 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 opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal but however could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the victim of this case, who appeared before the court as witness, did not support the prosecution case in material terms. 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 Kamil Khan Alias Shami involved in Case Crime No.448 of 2024 under Sections 376, 323, 342, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur 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 :- 10.3.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad