Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29591 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9085 of 2024 Appellant :- Deepak Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi,Rasmi Khilwani Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Deepak Kumar Gupta against the bail rejection order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj in Second Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1013 of 2024 (Deepak Kumar Gupta versus State of U.P. and another) arising out of case crime no. 145 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 376,323, 504, 506, 356 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1) S and 3(2)5 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station-Farenda, District-Maharajganj. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record. None appears for the informant. 3.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. The prosecutrix of this case, the daughter of the informant namely Ravina was eloped by Deepak Kumar Gupta, the present accused appellant and his two brothers Jhinak and Sarabjeet and when for a period of about 20 days she had been missing F.I.R. was lodged against the above mentioned three accused persons on 13.05.2025. After investigation now chargesheet has been submitted. It is further submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex. The present accused never pressurized the victim to have physical relationship with him rather her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals that she on her free will had left her house and went to Pipiganj via Farenda, Gorakhpur and Bombay where she performed marriage in a temple with the appellant and had been living as husband and wife. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix has stated that she has been a consenting party to the relationship. The prosecutrix itself has refused to undergo medical examination. Appellant is in jail since 02.08.2024. 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. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and it has been submitted that that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the present accused never married with prosecutrix and sham marriage was performed in the temple which has no legal value. It has been further categorically stated that after going from Bombay the present accused appellant fled away after fulfilling his lust. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 28.08.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 5. 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. 6. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused as also that the present case is of consensual relationship but the conduct of the accused appellant for not performing a valid marriage with the prosecutrix, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad