High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. In the revised call, none is present on behalf of opposite party no.2 although name of the counsel has been printed in the list.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the copy of the charge-sheet submitted in the matter is taken on record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ram Achal Vishwakama with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.554 of 2024 under Sections 64, 352, 118 (1), 351 (3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.

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

5. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the victim of this case, who is the wife of the informant, belongs to SC/ST community. On 25.9.2024 at about 4:00 a.m. when she was sleeping in her house, the present accused appellant committed rape with her after making some assault and meanwhile the husband of the victim came over there and he was also beaten by the accused appellant, who sustained injuries and the accused appellant fled away from there. F.I.R. was lodged on 28.9.2024 and the victim and her husband were medically examined and after investigation, now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

6. 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 also submitted that the prosecution story is not plausible and natural. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this case. It is also submitted that it was not plausible that the appellant entered into the house of the victim where she was living with her four children. It is also submitted that the injury report of the husband of the victim does not support the prosecution version. The doctor has found the injuries caused by hard and blunt object whereas the prosecution story narrates contrary to that. It is also submitted that the medical report of the victim does not corroborate with the prosecution version. F.I.R. was lodged very belatedly without any plausible explanation of the same. It is also submitted that due to animosity with the gram pradhan, the husband of the victim has wrongly roped the appellant, who happened to be assistant of the gram pradhan. It is also submitted that the criminal antecedent of one solitary case against the appellant has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. Appellant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2024 and as such he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the appellant has committed a daring act by committing rape with the victim after entering into her house. The injury reports of the victim and her husband completely corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that there is no material contradiction in the contents of the F.I.R. and the averments of the victim made under section 180 and 183 BNSS. However, he could not explain the reason as to why the F.I.R. of this was lodged belatedly and further why the victim and her husband were medically examined after four days of the incident.

8. 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.

9. 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 taken into account the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act, prima facie it appears that the offence was not caused on account of the reason that the victim belongs to SC/ST community, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 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.

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

11. Let the appellant Ram Achal Vishwakama involved in case crime no.554 of 2024 under Sections 64, 352, 118 (1), 351 (3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur 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 appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (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.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. In the revised call, none is present on behalf of opposite party no.2 although name of the counsel has been printed in the list.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the copy of the charge-sheet submitted in the matter is taken on record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ram Achal Vishwakama with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.554 of 2024 under Sections 64, 352, 118 (1), 351 (3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.

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

5. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the victim of this case, who is the wife of the informant, belongs to SC/ST community. On 25.9.2024 at about 4:00 a.m. when she was sleeping in her house, the present accused appellant committed rape with her after making some assault and meanwhile the husband of the victim came over there and he was also beaten by the accused appellant, who sustained injuries and the accused appellant fled away from there. F.I.R. was lodged on 28.9.2024 and the victim and her husband were medically examined and after investigation, now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

6. 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 also submitted that the prosecution story is not plausible and natural. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this case. It is also submitted that it was not plausible that the appellant entered into the house of the victim where she was living with her four children. It is also submitted that the injury report of the husband of the victim does not support the prosecution version. The doctor has found the injuries caused by hard and blunt object whereas the prosecution story narrates contrary to that. It is also submitted that the medical report of the victim does not corroborate with the prosecution version. F.I.R. was lodged very belatedly without any plausible explanation of the same. It is also submitted that due to animosity with the gram pradhan, the husband of the victim has wrongly roped the appellant, who happened to be assistant of the gram pradhan. It is also submitted that the criminal antecedent of one solitary case against the appellant has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. Appellant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2024 and as such he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the appellant has committed a daring act by committing rape with the victim after entering into her house. The injury reports of the victim and her husband completely corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that there is no material contradiction in the contents of the F.I.R. and the averments of the victim made under section 180 and 183 BNSS. However, he could not explain the reason as to why the F.I.R. of this was lodged belatedly and further why the victim and her husband were medically examined after four days of the incident.

8. 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.

9. 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 taken into account the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act, prima facie it appears that the offence was not caused on account of the reason that the victim belongs to SC/ST community, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 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.

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

11. Let the appellant Ram Achal Vishwakama involved in case crime no.554 of 2024 under Sections 64, 352, 118 (1), 351 (3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur 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 appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (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.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad