High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Amit Yadav with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.3.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.678 of 2024 under Sections 64, 333, 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha & 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that a rape was committed with the major prosecutrix by the present accused appellant after entering into her house in the night of 26.10.2024 by threatening her with a country made pistol and when her family members came there on her shrieks, he started stone pelting upon them and also hurled abuses with caste related remarks. F.I.R. was lodged on 01.11.2024.

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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. version as well as the statements made by the victim under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. do not contain a plausible story. It is not natural that in the night, victim was sleeping in an open room. It is also submitted that F.I.R. in this case was lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation. It is also submitted that in the medical examination of the victim, nothing adverse was found. As per specific case of prosecution, the sexual assault was made by threatening the victim with country made pistol but as a matter of fact when the appellant was arrested by the police, no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the appellant. It is also submitted that no injury was caused to any family members of the victim in consequence of stone pelting made by the appellant. It is also submitted that in the statement recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has made a specific statement that the appellant is having some objectionable photographs of her and on the basis of which he uses to blackmail the prosecutrix. It is also surprising that the prosecutrix never made any complaint regarding this to any of her family members. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients to establish the offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case and no caste related word has been remarked by the appellant to the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is languishing in jail since 5.1.2025. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur. It is further submitted that the Court concerned 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. 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. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been argued that the contents of the F.I.R. and the averments made by the victim in her statements under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. do not contain any major contradiction and specific role of accused appellant to commit rape with the victim has been made in the aforesaid averments. It is also submitted that the family members of the victim have also supported the prosecution case when they were interrogated by the I.O. It is also submitted that the wife of the accused appellant herself has made a statement before the I.O. that her husband was having some relations with the victim and on the date of incident, he had gone to the house of the victim.

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, the incarceration period of the appellant and also taking into account the fact that when the appellant was pelting stone on the family members of the victim and also abusing them, no independent person of neighbourhood came over there to rescue, as the offence was committed in the abadi of the village and also keeping in view the statement of the wife of the appellant, which gives a hint that there was some consensual relationship between the appellant and the victim, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 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.

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

9. Let the appellant Amit Yadav involved in Case Crime No.678 of 2024 under Sections 64, 333, 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha & 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bansgaon, 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.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 28.7.2025 / ss

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Amit Yadav with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.3.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.678 of 2024 under Sections 64, 333, 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha & 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that a rape was committed with the major prosecutrix by the present accused appellant after entering into her house in the night of 26.10.2024 by threatening her with a country made pistol and when her family members came there on her shrieks, he started stone pelting upon them and also hurled abuses with caste related remarks. F.I.R. was lodged on 01.11.2024.

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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. version as well as the statements made by the victim under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. do not contain a plausible story. It is not natural that in the night, victim was sleeping in an open room. It is also submitted that F.I.R. in this case was lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation. It is also submitted that in the medical examination of the victim, nothing adverse was found. As per specific case of prosecution, the sexual assault was made by threatening the victim with country made pistol but as a matter of fact when the appellant was arrested by the police, no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the appellant. It is also submitted that no injury was caused to any family members of the victim in consequence of stone pelting made by the appellant. It is also submitted that in the statement recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has made a specific statement that the appellant is having some objectionable photographs of her and on the basis of which he uses to blackmail the prosecutrix. It is also surprising that the prosecutrix never made any complaint regarding this to any of her family members. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients to establish the offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case and no caste related word has been remarked by the appellant to the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is languishing in jail since 5.1.2025. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur. It is further submitted that the Court concerned 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. 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. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been argued that the contents of the F.I.R. and the averments made by the victim in her statements under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. do not contain any major contradiction and specific role of accused appellant to commit rape with the victim has been made in the aforesaid averments. It is also submitted that the family members of the victim have also supported the prosecution case when they were interrogated by the I.O. It is also submitted that the wife of the accused appellant herself has made a statement before the I.O. that her husband was having some relations with the victim and on the date of incident, he had gone to the house of the victim.

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, the incarceration period of the appellant and also taking into account the fact that when the appellant was pelting stone on the family members of the victim and also abusing them, no independent person of neighbourhood came over there to rescue, as the offence was committed in the abadi of the village and also keeping in view the statement of the wife of the appellant, which gives a hint that there was some consensual relationship between the appellant and the victim, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 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.

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

9. Let the appellant Amit Yadav involved in Case Crime No.678 of 2024 under Sections 64, 333, 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha & 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bansgaon, 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.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 28.7.2025 / ss