The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of corroboration in the medical report, absence of evidence regarding the alleged video clip, and the appellant's detention period supported the grant of bail, in line with the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles laid down in Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Suhail Kashif along with Shri Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsels for the appellant as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. This Court vide order dated 19.07.2022 while issuing notice to the opposite party No. 1 has already granted time to the learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit.

3. As per the office report dated 03.08.2022 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. Even no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State till date. It appears that learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party No. 2 are not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

5. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 05.05.2022 and 05.07.2022 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 1008 of 2022 (Dhirendra vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 86 of 2022, under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 67-A of I.T. (Amendment) Act and Bail Application No. 1639 of 2022 (Dhirendra Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 86 of 2022, under Section 66-E of I.T. (Amendment) Act, relating to Police Station-Jaidpur, District-Barabanki, respectively, whereby the both the bail applications of the appellant have been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 67-A of I.T. (Amendment) Act against three persons including the present appellant, which too, after an inordinate delay without explaining the delay. The charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that against the present appellant there is only allegation against him is for making video of prosecutrix while two other accused were committing rape of the prosecutrix, whereas no any camera or mobile phone has been recovered. Thus, the entire allegation levelled against the appellant is false and fabricated which has been made by the prosecutrix due to enmity as there is enmity between the family members of the appellant and the family members of the proxecutrix.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that two accused against whom prosecutrix have levelled allegation of rape committed upon her by them have already been enlarged on bail by two different coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 05.05.2023 and 19.06.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1082 of 2022 (Mohit Vs. State of U.P. and another) and Criminal Revision No. 820 of 2022 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of U.P.)., and as there is only allegation against the appellant is for making video of prosecutrix while two other accused were committing rape of the prosecutrix, thus, the case of appellant is on the better footing than that of the aforesaid two accused. Both the orders are taken on record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that younger cousin sister of the victim was also present on the date of occurrence who went to inform her family members about this incident. He submitted that the story as narrated by victim itself is improbable as the accused/appellants, who were three in number, would not allow anybody to escape from the scene of occurrence so easily so as to go and inform his/ her family members about the incident. He further submitted that the victim is major, aged about 20