High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant -Ajay with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Pilibhit, in Bail Application No. 327 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 503 of 2024, under Sections 74, 87, 70(1), 115(2), 351(3) BNS & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Puranpur, District Pilibhit.

3. The prosecution has lodged FIR on 24.10.2024 at about 2:30 in the afternoon alleging that when the victim was going from her college, she was enticed away by the accused Abhishek and Ajay and they took her to Pizza Centre and thereafter she was taken to Pilibhit by them by motorcycle and in the hotel alleged rape was committed with her several times. The present appellant came back and the victim was again taken to Chandigarh by co-accused Abhishek, where she met a girl Sonam and thereafter she was sent to Bareilly by train from Ambala by the said Sonam, and at Bareilly Railway Station, co-accused persons Abhishek, Kapil, Raj Kumar and Rakesh met her and she was taken to the village Balrampur by Car, where she was brutally beaten by them. They also hurled abuses and made remarks on her caste. Subsequently, on 8.11.2024, she was left at bus stand and on information, the uncle of the victim comes there and she was brought to Puranpur, after that FIR was lodged on 26.11.2024 and now charge sheet has been submitted.

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. It is further submitted that all the allegations against the present appellant are false and fabricated and the victim of this case is a major girl and IO has collected multiple evidence in this connection that she was having some affair of the main accused Abhishek. It is further submitted that the Gram Pradhan and alleged villagers have also given the same statement to the IO. It is also submitted that she refused for internal or external examination by the doctor. It is also submitted that in the statement under Section 180 BNS, she was not even taken the name of the present applicant. However, her statement under Section 183 BNS, she has leveled some allegation against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the victim has been out of her house for so many days and in the train journey from Ambala to Bareilly but she never made any voice or any complaint to anyone on the way. It is further submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged after 25 days on her release without any explanation of inordinate delay. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered by the police from the accused appellant and as a matter of fact he has nothing to do with all the incident.

5. It is further submitted that the alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. The trial Court 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. Appellant is in jail since 12.01.2025. 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.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that he impressed upon the statement of victim, which was made under Section 183 of BNS but however, he could not explain the facts as to why the FIR was lodged after so many days after her coming back to her house and why she did not make any noise during her train journey or not made any complaint to any person during the period she was being taken by the accused appellant. He further submits that appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 17.02.2025.

7. 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.

8. 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 Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

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

10. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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.

11. 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 :- 26.5.2025 Akram MOHAMMAD AKRAM MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant -Ajay with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Pilibhit, in Bail Application No. 327 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 503 of 2024, under Sections 74, 87, 70(1), 115(2), 351(3) BNS & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Puranpur, District Pilibhit.

3. The prosecution has lodged FIR on 24.10.2024 at about 2:30 in the afternoon alleging that when the victim was going from her college, she was enticed away by the accused Abhishek and Ajay and they took her to Pizza Centre and thereafter she was taken to Pilibhit by them by motorcycle and in the hotel alleged rape was committed with her several times. The present appellant came back and the victim was again taken to Chandigarh by co-accused Abhishek, where she met a girl Sonam and thereafter she was sent to Bareilly by train from Ambala by the said Sonam, and at Bareilly Railway Station, co-accused persons Abhishek, Kapil, Raj Kumar and Rakesh met her and she was taken to the village Balrampur by Car, where she was brutally beaten by them. They also hurled abuses and made remarks on her caste. Subsequently, on 8.11.2024, she was left at bus stand and on information, the uncle of the victim comes there and she was brought to Puranpur, after that FIR was lodged on 26.11.2024 and now charge sheet has been submitted.

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. It is further submitted that all the allegations against the present appellant are false and fabricated and the victim of this case is a major girl and IO has collected multiple evidence in this connection that she was having some affair of the main accused Abhishek. It is further submitted that the Gram Pradhan and alleged villagers have also given the same statement to the IO. It is also submitted that she refused for internal or external examination by the doctor. It is also submitted that in the statement under Section 180 BNS, she was not even taken the name of the present applicant. However, her statement under Section 183 BNS, she has leveled some allegation against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the victim has been out of her house for so many days and in the train journey from Ambala to Bareilly but she never made any voice or any complaint to anyone on the way. It is further submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged after 25 days on her release without any explanation of inordinate delay. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered by the police from the accused appellant and as a matter of fact he has nothing to do with all the incident.

5. It is further submitted that the alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. The trial Court 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. Appellant is in jail since 12.01.2025. 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.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that he impressed upon the statement of victim, which was made under Section 183 of BNS but however, he could not explain the facts as to why the FIR was lodged after so many days after her coming back to her house and why she did not make any noise during her train journey or not made any complaint to any person during the period she was being taken by the accused appellant. He further submits that appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 17.02.2025.

7. 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.

8. 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 Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

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

10. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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.

11. 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 :- 26.5.2025 Akram MOHAMMAD AKRAM MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad