The court determined that the appellant's alleged actions did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, allowing bail based on the consensual nature of the relationship and errors in the trial Court's judgment.

JUDGMENT

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant and counter affidavit filed by the State are taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Sazim with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.9.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.2, Shahjahanpur in Bail Application No.2563 of 2024.

3. The major lady prosecutrix of this case was eloped by the present accused appellant and on 1.6.2024 at about 6.00 pm they were held by the public. Police came into picture and the informant took back her daughter/ victim. Subsequently FIR was lodged by the informant/ mother of the victim. After investigation now the 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the accused appellant is already a married person and no offence has been committed by him. There was no occasion for him to elope with the victim of this case as he was a family person. It is further submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between the two major persons of opposite sex and no offence has been committed by the accused appellant. It is also submitted that subsequently under pressure of her family members the prosecutrix of this case made some adverse statements against the accused appellant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement made by the victim herself under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and in the averments of the FIR as well. It is further submitted that criminal history of one case has been explained in the affidavit. 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 23.8.2024. 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 and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 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 dated 7.9.2024. It is further submitted that the accused appellant who is already a married person took the victim of this case from her house and physical relations were made by the appellant by the deceitful means.

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, severity of punishment and also keeping in view that prima facie it appears to be a consensual relation in the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appel