Ram Milan Prajapati v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

"Learned counsel for the private respondent is not present even in the revised list, whereas learned counsel for the appellant is present. List in the week commencing 21.04.2025. In case, learned counsel for the private respondent does not appear on the next date, the appeal may be heard in his absence."

2. Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/complainant/victim of Case Crime No. 787 of 2024. Learned AGA is present in the Court. Taking note of earlier order of this Court dated 10.04.2025, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits.

3. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 3020 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 787 of 2024, under Sections- 69, 115(2), 351(3), 85 B.N.S. and Sections- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki.

5. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the opposite party No. 2/complainant/victim, a widow, has levelleved allegations in the FIR in issue, basis of pending criminal proceedings, against the appellant to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the appellant established physical relations with her, thus if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value then in that eventuality, the possibility of conviction of appellant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s) rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 7 SCC; Mandar 2 CRLA No. 4076 of 2024 Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110 and Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230.

6. It is further stated that in fact the allegations of committing crime have been levelled only in relation to Rs. 20,000/- which were provided by the appellant to the opposite party No. 2.

7. It is further stated that the statement of opposite party No. 2 has already been recorded before the trial court and a bare perusal of the statement annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 22.09.2025 would indicate that the victim has not supported the story of prosecution and therefore she was declared hostile and prosecution was permitted by the court concerned to cross-examine this witness and in cross-examination also nothing could be elicited against the appellant.

8. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 10.09.2024. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

10. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

11. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 10.09.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

12. Order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 3020 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 787 of 2024, under Sections- 69, 115(2), 351(3), 85 B.N.S. and Sections- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Ram Milan Prajapati be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 3 CRLA No. 4076 of 2024 (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 recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

14. 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

15. 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. (Saurabh Lavania,J.) November 6, 2025 Arun/-

"Learned counsel for the private respondent is not present even in the revised list, whereas learned counsel for the appellant is present. List in the week commencing 21.04.2025. In case, learned counsel for the private respondent does not appear on the next date, the appeal may be heard in his absence."

2. Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/complainant/victim of Case Crime No. 787 of 2024. Learned AGA is present in the Court. Taking note of earlier order of this Court dated 10.04.2025, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits.

3. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 3020 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 787 of 2024, under Sections- 69, 115(2), 351(3), 85 B.N.S. and Sections- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki.

5. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the opposite party No. 2/complainant/victim, a widow, has levelleved allegations in the FIR in issue, basis of pending criminal proceedings, against the appellant to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the appellant established physical relations with her, thus if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value then in that eventuality, the possibility of conviction of appellant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s) rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 7 SCC; Mandar 2 CRLA No. 4076 of 2024 Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110 and Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230.

6. It is further stated that in fact the allegations of committing crime have been levelled only in relation to Rs. 20,000/- which were provided by the appellant to the opposite party No. 2.

7. It is further stated that the statement of opposite party No. 2 has already been recorded before the trial court and a bare perusal of the statement annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 22.09.2025 would indicate that the victim has not supported the story of prosecution and therefore she was declared hostile and prosecution was permitted by the court concerned to cross-examine this witness and in cross-examination also nothing could be elicited against the appellant.

8. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 10.09.2024. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

10. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

11. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 10.09.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

12. Order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 3020 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 787 of 2024, under Sections- 69, 115(2), 351(3), 85 B.N.S. and Sections- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Ram Milan Prajapati be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 3 CRLA No. 4076 of 2024 (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 recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

14. 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

15. 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. (Saurabh Lavania,J.) November 6, 2025 Arun/-