ORDER : Navneet Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned APP assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Giridih in M.C.A No.1668 of 2024, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Giridih (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.280 of 2024 registered under Sections 376(2n)/417/504/506/341/323/120B of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(1)(w-iⅈ) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that gist of the allegation as set out in the F.I.R. is that the appellant is the friend of the husband of the victim-informant who is major woman aged about 26 years and she alleged that she was sexually exploited by the appellant by giving false promise of an opportunity to work in film industry and after taking of obscene photographs, the appellant used to exploit her sexually. 4. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that as per the allegation set out in the FIR itself, the first incident is alleged to have taken place on 02.03.2024 but this FIR has been instituted after the inordinate delay of about 06 months i.e. on 03.09.2024 and as such the veracity and truthfulness of the allegations become doubtful. 5. Further, it has been pointed out that victim-informant is a major woman and it is not a case that she has forcibly been ravished by the appellant, rather, she was put in the false impression by giving an opportunity to work in the film industry and taking the obscene photograph she was being exploited which does not appear to be truthful in view of the fact that she is a matured lady of 26 years. 6. Further, this appellant is in custody 24.09.2024 and it has also been pointed out the FIR was instituted inter-alia under SC/ST (POA) Act, but charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 376(2n) and 417 of the IPC only and the charges under SC/ST (POA) Act has not been substantiated and therefore, charge sheet has not been submitted against those sections and hence, the appellants deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. 7. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail and stated that appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail because there is a very heinous offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant in view of the fact that he has taken the obscene photographs of the victim by giving false impression that she would be given opportunity to work in the film industry as heroin and thereafter she was exploited by the appellant and therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case. 9. In view of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and fair to enlarge the appellant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in M.C.A. No.1668 of 2024 in connection with Giridih (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.280 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 12. In consequence thereof, the appellant named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Giridih in connection with Giridih (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.280 of 2024, subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned trial Court for the cancellation of bail as per the provisions of law. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of