Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23637 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9529 of 2024 Appellant :- Sadik Khan @ Guddu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar,Shiv Badan Counsel for Respondent :- Dharmendra Kumar,G.A.,Kuldeep Mishra 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. None appears for respondent no.2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken 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 - Sadik Khan @ Guddu with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 8.8.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hamirpur. 3. The accused appellant enticed away the major victim/ sister of the informant on 22.4.2024 at 11.00 am and she had also taken cash Rs.90,000/- and some jewelries and when she was not traced out an FIR was lodged under Section 366 I.P.C. and after investigation 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 both the parties in this case are major. The appellant never eloped with the victim rather to the contrary the victim in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution version. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she admits that she was in contact with the present accused appellant and used to talk on mobile. She had left her house on the promise made by the accused appellant to marry her. Although initially he avoid the marriage but on her insistence both of them performed Court marriage. Subsequently she came to know that the accused appellant is Muslim by caste whereas she is Hindu and when he persuaded her for conversion she refused and the appellant left her away. 5. It is further submitted that even in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she does not corroborate the prosecution version in material terms. It is further submitted that the victim herself denied to be medically examined internally. It is also submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between the two major persons of opposite sex and no offence has been committed by the present accused appellant. 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 9.5.2024. 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. 6. 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 8.8.2024 but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of this matter that according to the statement made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the appellant and the victim have performed Court marriage. 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 long term physical willful relations between the two 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. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 10. Let the appellant - Sadik Khan @ Guddu involved in Case Crime No. 135 of 2024 under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/5(1) Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kurara, District- Hamirpur 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. 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 :- 19.2.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad