Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59485 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 782 of 2025 Appellant :- Dilshad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dev Kaushik,Manish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shyam Babu Vaish 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 Dilshad against the bail rejection order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ (POCSO), Aligarh in case crime no. 727 of 2024 under Sections 351 (2), 351 (3) B.N.S., 3/4 POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Banna Devi, District- Aligarh. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. As per prosecution story the minor victim had been molested by the accused/appellant and the crime continued for a period of about 2 years. Subsequently when the matter was disclosed by the victim to her mother the FIR was lodged and now the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter. 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 the whole prosecution story is based on false and fabricated facts. There is no plausible explanation of the fact that why the FIR of this case was lodged 2 years after the incident. It is not plausible at all that the minor daughter of the informant was being sexually assaulted by the appellant and she kept mum for a period of 2 years and no complaint was made by her to her family members or even to the police. It is also submitted that in the FIR of this case it has been mentioned that some obscene videos relating to the victim were also prepared and she was being blackmailed on the basis of such video, which is a concocted story. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. 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 1.10.2024. 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. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant 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. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 11.12.2024. It is further submitted that since the victim was a minor girl she silently tolerated the criminal and sexual acts of the appellant and in the cases like this the delay in lodging the FIR has no relevance. It is further submitted that when the accused appellant was arrested by the police his mobile phone was taken into custody by the police which was containing several obscene videos and photographs of the victim. The said videos which were saved in a pen drive is a part of the record and is available in the case diary as well. It is also submitted that the applicant on pretext of making some treatment of the brother of the victim got entry in her house and taking undue advantage of this he forcefully made sexual relations with the victim. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 and also taking into account the fact that the victim of this case is a minor girl and she was blackmailed by the appellant on the basis of obscene photos and videos, which are the part of the record, 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, particularly in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 INSC 909 and Omana Kuttan Vs. State of Kerala 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 15052. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad