Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145227 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8811 of 2024 Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Ravi Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Yadav,Sadrul Islam Jafri Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Heard Mr. I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.C. Yadav, Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N.I. Zafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Gorakhpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 846 of 2024 arising out of case crime No. 301 of 2018, under sections 504, 506, 507, 120-B, 201, 354(ka), 376 IPC and section 66 and 67 I.T. Act and section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Cantt, District Gorakhpur whereby discharge application moved by the appellant has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that O.P. N. 2 is completing her research work under supervision of Prof. of Dwarka Nath, Department of Philosophy, Gorakhpur University. The appellant's father has only a formal relation of teacher and student with the O.P. No. 2. The appellant is also perusing his research work in the same university of Philosophy department. The elder sister of O.P. No. 2 was suffering from chronic disease and for treatment the O.P. No. 2 has sought financial support as debt from the appellant by stating that after getting well she will refund the money. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that when the appellant demanded the money, firstly the O.P. No. 2 showed disability to return the money, but when the appellant demanded the money again, the O.P. No. 2 falsely implicated to the appellant along with his father and sister. O.P. no. 2 has nothing said against the appellant in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 as well as learned counsel for State have stated that the O.P. No. 2 is well educated girl, the appellant has made obscene video of O.P. No. 2 and also committed rape with her. The victim/O.P. No. 2 has also stated the same in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. 5. I have gone through the impugned order, the arguments made by both the parties and Impugned order itself reflects that charges against the accused have already been framed and the grounds taken for discharge cannot be considered at this stage as truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence produced by the accused can be adjudged during trial. The impugned order passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant any interference by this Court. 6. The application is without merit and is hereby dismissed. 7. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the present case the N.B.W. dated 06.12.2024 has been issued against the appellant shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 30 days and further, it is directed that in case the appellant appears before the court below and applies for bail within 30 form today, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 RPD Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad