The court considered discrepancies in the victim's statements, additional relevant material, and the delay in trial in allowing the appeal and granting bail to the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Srees Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant.

2. Present appeal has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1413 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 621 of 2019, under Sections 452, 376, 511, 323, 506 IPC and 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Ganga Ghat, District Unnao.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that though there is allegation of beating but there is no visible injury on the person of opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that version of the FIR is different from the version of statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and impugned FIR is malicious as prior to above incident at the house of opposite party no.2 one Raja Mishra, who called the mother of the appellant to pay certain loan amount and tried to commit rape and thereafter, present proceeding was initiated just to pressurise the appellant.

4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the FIR lodged by the mother of the appellant was subsequent to the FIR of the present case and there are specific allegations against the appellant for beating and attempting to rape upon the opposite party no.2 though it is correct that there is no visible injury on the body of the opposite party no.2.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that there are specific allegations upon the appellant for attempting to commit rape and beating the victim, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order/judgment.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is clear that though the allegation of beating was made upon the appellant but there is no visible injury upon the person of opposite party no.2. Even otherwise, the version of opposite party no.2 in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is different from the version of instant FIR as well as her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, from the record it appears that in the house of the opposite party no.2, one Raja Mishra has also tried to commit rape on the mother of the appellant but this material was not considered by the court below while passing the impugned order.

7. In view of above and also keeping the view of the fact that trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.07.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao is hereby set aside.

8. Let the appellant-Taqdeer Husian involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

a. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

b. The appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

c. The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

d. The appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.