JUDGMENT : PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.01 of 2025) 1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State. Despite sufficient opportunity, non-appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 08.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Sitapur, rejecting the bail application (No. 242 of 2025) of the appellant, Shivam Sharma S/o Rajesh Sharma, in connection with Case Crime No. 0078 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(3), 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da)(dha) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Maholi, District-Sitapur. The appellant is currently in jail since 19.07.2025. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, aged about 30 years, is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity and ulterior motive. It is further argued that there is a significant and unexplained delay of approximately 5 months in lodging the FIR, which was registered on 06.03.2025 for an incident allegedly occurring on 12.10.2024. The counsel contends that the complainant, who is a married woman aged about 30 years (as per FIR) but claimed to be over 40 years in the grounds, having an 11-year-old child, was living in a relationship with the appellant. It is falsely stated that the accused appellant established a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage, and it is impossible for such relations to have continued for four years solely on this basis. The counsel points out that there are vast contradictions in the statements of the complainant, which were recorded under Section 180 BNS on 07.03.2025 and changed in her subsequent statement under Section 183 BNS on 04.04.2025. Though the investigation noted the medical report stated "sexual violence cannot be ruled out," the appellant asserts the charges are fabricated. Finally, the appellant has no criminal history and has been in continuous judicial custody since 19.07.2025. Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, arguing that the offences are serious, and the chargesheet has been filed under Section 64 (Rape) BNS and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act. Finally, the appellant has no criminal history and has been in continuous judicial custody since 19.07.2025. Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, arguing that the offences are serious, and the chargesheet has been filed under Section 64 (Rape) BNS and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act. However, the AGA could not directly contradict the specific factual submissions made by the appellant's counsel regarding the significant delay of about five months in lodging the FIR, or the contradictions observed in the complainant's statements, particularly the changes between her statement recorded under Section 180 BNS on 07.03.2025 and her later statement recorded under Section 183 BNS on 04.04.2025. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the complainant's age is recorded as 1995, making her about 30 years old. She is a married woman and mother of one child aged about 11 years, and it appears she was living in a relationship with the appellant and established physical relations four years prior to the FIR. The AGA conceded that the record shows the appellant has no criminal history and has been in continuous judicial custody since 19.07.2025. Considering the totality of the circumstances, particularly the contradictory nature of the prosecution story evidenced by the changes in the complainant's statements (recorded under Section 180 BNS on 07.03.2025 and Section 183 BNS on 04.04.2025 ) and the alleged fabricated nature of the charges against the appellant's family members, the significant delay of five months in lodging the FIR, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant since 19.07.2025, and the fact that the appeal against the rejection of bail by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur, dated 08.08.2025 is the statutory right of the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. In view of the above, the Criminal Misc. Bail Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur, is set aside. In view of the above, the Criminal Misc. Bail Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur, is set aside. Let the appellant, Shivum Sharma , be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 78 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(3), 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following additional conditions: (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.