Rahul Gupta alias Neelu Gupta v. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No

2. Heard Mr. Shiv Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P./opposite party No. 1, Mr. Rohit Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

3. In short compass, the facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that victim got a first information report lodged on 30.07.2023 with regard to an incident which took place between 03.02.2022 and 08.02.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 506, 504, 323, 354(B) I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Jugendra Singh Yadav (Ex Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Etah), Rameshwar Singh Yadav (Ex M.L.A.), Pramod Yadav, Subodh Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Rahul Gupta @ Neelu Gupta (appellant) with the allegations inter alia that on 02.02.2022 at about 11:00 a.m, she had gone to the house of Jugendra Singh Yadav to ask for a job, then he kept her at his resident to cook food and clean the house. Next day at about 3:00 pm, Jugendra Singh Yadav came to his house, at that time she was cleaning utensils, then he called her and forcibly dragged her to his bedroom and raped her. After five days of the said incident, when she came to know that Rameshwar Singh Yadav, former MLA, Pramod Yadav, Subodh Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Rahul Gupta @ Neelu Gupta (appellant) have come to their house, so gathering courage, she went to the residence of Rameshwar Singh Yadav for making complaint, then he, took out his pistol and kept on her breast and all of them behaved indecently with her and beat her and tore her clothes, due to which she became semi naked. Somehow she saved her life. When she came to know that Jugendra Singh Yadav and Rameshwar Singh Yadav are in jail, then she gathered courage to lodge F.I.R.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated. So far as present status of trial of accused persons is concerned, it is pointed out that the charge sheet dated 21.10.2023 has been submitted against Jugendra Singh Yadav and Rameshwar Singh Yadav and they are facing trial in S.C. No. 1332 of 2023. Separate charge sheet dated 03.11.2023 has been submitted against the appellant and he is facing trial in SC No. 1432 of 2023. Similarly charge sheet dated 04.12.2023 has been submitted against Subodh Kumar but he is facing trial with the appellant. The investigation with regard to accused Pramod Yadav and Vinod Yadav is still going on. Much emphasis has been given by contending that though the statement of the victim has not been recorded in SC No. 1432 of 2023, but when statement of victim was recorded as PW-1 on 09.01.2025 in S.C. No. 1332 of 2023, she completely denied the incident, hence she has been declared hostile, hence there is bleak chance of conviction of the appellant who is languishing in jail since 21.04.2025. It is also submitted that as per F.I.R., allegation of rape has been levelled against co- accused Jugendra Singh Yadav only, therefore, on merit also, the case of the present appellant stands on different footing than that of co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav. It is next submitted that apart from this case, appellant has criminal history of eight cases, out of which in three cases final/closure reports have been filed in his favour, in two cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court, in one case proceeding has been quashed by this Court and in one case appellant is on bail, which has been explained in paragraph Nos. 27 to 36 of the afÏdavit filed in support of this criminal appeal. It is also pointed out that considering the statement of the victim recorded before the trial court co-accused Rameshwar Yadav has also been granted bail by the trial court vide order dated 03.04.2025. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the trial.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by contending that victim herself lodged the F.I.R. and she, in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., supported the prosecution case, but later on she flatly denied the incident of rape on her before the trial court, hence possibility of winning over the victim from the accused side cannot be ruled out.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/victim referring the contents of counter afÏdavit dated 12.05.2025 filed by the victim making allegations against the police personnel submits that victim had not lodged first information report. The police personnel forcibly took her signature on a blank paper and got the first information report lodged on her behalf behind her back. Thereafter regarding the harassment of victim, her husband had sent an application dated 31.07.2023 to the Chief Minister by registered post, but no action had been taken against the police ofÏcers. On 10.11.2023, victim had given an application to the Superintendent of Police, Etah, making allegations against the police personnel, who were mounting pressure upon her for giving statement as per their instructions and copy of said application was also sent to higher ofÏcers of the State, but they did not take any action against the police personnel. It is also pointed out that police personnel adopting different modus operandi also got another first information report lodged on her behalf on 17.08.2023 against 19 named accused persons including the appellant, which was registered at Case Crime No. 268 of 2023, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2) (va), 3(1)(द), 3(1)(घ) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Jaithara, District Etah, in which after culmination of investigation charge sheet dated 09.11.2023 was submitted against the appellant, on which trial court took cognizance and summoned the accused appellant vide order dated 02.04.2024. The said charge sheet and summoning order were challenged by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4101 of 2024, in which also victim filed a detail counter afÏdavit denying the fact of lodging the F.I.R. against the appellant and others by her. Considering the facts disclosed by the victim in her afÏdavit, the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.07.2024 set aside the summoning order dated 02.04.2024 passed against the appellant and remitted the matter back to the trial court to pass a fresh order after examining the facts disclosed by the victim in her counter afÏdavit. Thereafter, victim filed an afÏdavit dated 20.02.2025 before the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Etah in Session Case No. 243 of 2024 denying the fact of lodging F.I.R. by her, but till date no order has been passed on the same. It is also pointed out that complainant has not taken any compensation. On the strength of aforesaid facts it is submitted that police had got a false F.I.R. lodged on his own misusing her name. During investigation, she had given false statement under under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. on the pressure of police personnel as per their instructions, hence she has no objection, in case this Court enlarges the appellant on bail.

7. Since the allegation of the prosecution/ state and the defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court at this stage is not examining the statement of prosecution witnesses meticulously, so that it may not affect the merits of the trial.

8. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted above and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment as well as the fact that it is not in dispute that victim has denied the alleged incident, when her statement was recorded before the trial court in S.C. No. 1332 of 2023 of co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav and on that basis co-accused Rameshwar Yadav has also been granted bail by the trial court, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

9. The Court below 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-Rahul Gupta alias Neelu Gupta, involved in the above Case 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:- (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 dates 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 ofÏcer 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.

13. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

14. Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the appellant expeditiously without granting any adjournment to either of the parties fixing short dates.

15. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court immediately for information and compliance. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Mr. Shiv Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P./opposite party No. 1, Mr. Rohit Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

3. In short compass, the facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that victim got a first information report lodged on 30.07.2023 with regard to an incident which took place between 03.02.2022 and 08.02.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 506, 504, 323, 354(B) I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Jugendra Singh Yadav (Ex Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Etah), Rameshwar Singh Yadav (Ex M.L.A.), Pramod Yadav, Subodh Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Rahul Gupta @ Neelu Gupta (appellant) with the allegations inter alia that on 02.02.2022 at about 11:00 a.m, she had gone to the house of Jugendra Singh Yadav to ask for a job, then he kept her at his resident to cook food and clean the house. Next day at about 3:00 pm, Jugendra Singh Yadav came to his house, at that time she was cleaning utensils, then he called her and forcibly dragged her to his bedroom and raped her. After five days of the said incident, when she came to know that Rameshwar Singh Yadav, former MLA, Pramod Yadav, Subodh Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Rahul Gupta @ Neelu Gupta (appellant) have come to their house, so gathering courage, she went to the residence of Rameshwar Singh Yadav for making complaint, then he, took out his pistol and kept on her breast and all of them behaved indecently with her and beat her and tore her clothes, due to which she became semi naked. Somehow she saved her life. When she came to know that Jugendra Singh Yadav and Rameshwar Singh Yadav are in jail, then she gathered courage to lodge F.I.R.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated. So far as present status of trial of accused persons is concerned, it is pointed out that the charge sheet dated 21.10.2023 has been submitted against Jugendra Singh Yadav and Rameshwar Singh Yadav and they are facing trial in S.C. No. 1332 of 2023. Separate charge sheet dated 03.11.2023 has been submitted against the appellant and he is facing trial in SC No. 1432 of 2023. Similarly charge sheet dated 04.12.2023 has been submitted against Subodh Kumar but he is facing trial with the appellant. The investigation with regard to accused Pramod Yadav and Vinod Yadav is still going on. Much emphasis has been given by contending that though the statement of the victim has not been recorded in SC No. 1432 of 2023, but when statement of victim was recorded as PW-1 on 09.01.2025 in S.C. No. 1332 of 2023, she completely denied the incident, hence she has been declared hostile, hence there is bleak chance of conviction of the appellant who is languishing in jail since 21.04.2025. It is also submitted that as per F.I.R., allegation of rape has been levelled against co- accused Jugendra Singh Yadav only, therefore, on merit also, the case of the present appellant stands on different footing than that of co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav. It is next submitted that apart from this case, appellant has criminal history of eight cases, out of which in three cases final/closure reports have been filed in his favour, in two cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court, in one case proceeding has been quashed by this Court and in one case appellant is on bail, which has been explained in paragraph Nos. 27 to 36 of the afÏdavit filed in support of this criminal appeal. It is also pointed out that considering the statement of the victim recorded before the trial court co-accused Rameshwar Yadav has also been granted bail by the trial court vide order dated 03.04.2025. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the trial.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by contending that victim herself lodged the F.I.R. and she, in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., supported the prosecution case, but later on she flatly denied the incident of rape on her before the trial court, hence possibility of winning over the victim from the accused side cannot be ruled out.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/victim referring the contents of counter afÏdavit dated 12.05.2025 filed by the victim making allegations against the police personnel submits that victim had not lodged first information report. The police personnel forcibly took her signature on a blank paper and got the first information report lodged on her behalf behind her back. Thereafter regarding the harassment of victim, her husband had sent an application dated 31.07.2023 to the Chief Minister by registered post, but no action had been taken against the police ofÏcers. On 10.11.2023, victim had given an application to the Superintendent of Police, Etah, making allegations against the police personnel, who were mounting pressure upon her for giving statement as per their instructions and copy of said application was also sent to higher ofÏcers of the State, but they did not take any action against the police personnel. It is also pointed out that police personnel adopting different modus operandi also got another first information report lodged on her behalf on 17.08.2023 against 19 named accused persons including the appellant, which was registered at Case Crime No. 268 of 2023, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2) (va), 3(1)(द), 3(1)(घ) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Jaithara, District Etah, in which after culmination of investigation charge sheet dated 09.11.2023 was submitted against the appellant, on which trial court took cognizance and summoned the accused appellant vide order dated 02.04.2024. The said charge sheet and summoning order were challenged by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4101 of 2024, in which also victim filed a detail counter afÏdavit denying the fact of lodging the F.I.R. against the appellant and others by her. Considering the facts disclosed by the victim in her afÏdavit, the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.07.2024 set aside the summoning order dated 02.04.2024 passed against the appellant and remitted the matter back to the trial court to pass a fresh order after examining the facts disclosed by the victim in her counter afÏdavit. Thereafter, victim filed an afÏdavit dated 20.02.2025 before the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Etah in Session Case No. 243 of 2024 denying the fact of lodging F.I.R. by her, but till date no order has been passed on the same. It is also pointed out that complainant has not taken any compensation. On the strength of aforesaid facts it is submitted that police had got a false F.I.R. lodged on his own misusing her name. During investigation, she had given false statement under under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. on the pressure of police personnel as per their instructions, hence she has no objection, in case this Court enlarges the appellant on bail.

7. Since the allegation of the prosecution/ state and the defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court at this stage is not examining the statement of prosecution witnesses meticulously, so that it may not affect the merits of the trial.

8. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted above and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment as well as the fact that it is not in dispute that victim has denied the alleged incident, when her statement was recorded before the trial court in S.C. No. 1332 of 2023 of co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav and on that basis co-accused Rameshwar Yadav has also been granted bail by the trial court, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

9. The Court below 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-Rahul Gupta alias Neelu Gupta, involved in the above Case 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:- (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 dates 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 ofÏcer 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.

13. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

14. Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the appellant expeditiously without granting any adjournment to either of the parties fixing short dates.

15. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court immediately for information and compliance. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad