The court found that the appellant made a sufficient case for bail, emphasizing the consensual nature of the relationship and errors in the trial court's assessment.

JUDGMENT :

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 - Rohit Pandey with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sant Kabir Nagar and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 509 of 2024 under Sections 376(2)(n), 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(V) and 3(1)dha of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.

3. The prosecution has come forward with a case that on the false pretext of marriage, the present appellant made and developed physical relations with the major victim and when she asked to marry, he refused and in the meanwhile some handsome amount was also grabbed by him from the poor victim. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation 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. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the appellant procured some obscene video and photograph of the victim and on the basis of the same he made physical relations with her by threatening and blackmailing. It is further submitted that the accused appellant as well as the victim of this case both are major persons and it is a case of consent. No offence has been committed by the present appellant and whatsoever happened between the two that was the result of the consent and free will of the victim. The Court concerned 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 has no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail since 15.8.2024. 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 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. It is also submitted that physical relation was made by the appellant with the victim of this case on false pretext of marriage and subsequently he refused. Offence is very serious.

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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the fact that it appears to be a consenting relationship between the two major persons, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

9. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in aforesaid Case Crime Number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 appe