High Court · 2025

Appellant :- Taranne Khan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire 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 - Taranne Khan with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 30.1.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj and release the appellant on bail in Session Trial No.212 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.975 of 2021 under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj.

3. The prosecution has come forward with a case that on 18.11.2021 at 7:00 p.m. when the informant / victim of this case had gone to the field to ease herself, the present accused appellant carrying country made pistol with him threatened her for life and rape was committed with the lady. Some family members and villagers came over there and the accused fled away. However, the report of the victim was not lodged by the police and when she did not get any help from the higher officials, an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved and F.I.R. was lodged. However, after investigation the I.O. of the case submitted closure report in this matter, which was opposed by way of filing a protest petition by the informant / victim and the said protest petition was treated as criminal complaint by the court concerned and after making all the formalities, the court summoned the present accused appellant to face trial under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act.

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. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this matter. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the real fact of this case is that before some time, on the sake of treatment of her husband, the victim lady had borrowed some money from the appellant and when he demanded for the same, he was falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version and there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim lady under section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and contents of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the medical examination of the victim was performed about 1½ months after the alleged incident. There is no cogent evidence of any witness on record to support the prosecution case. It is also submitted that no injury was found over the body of the victim in her medical examination whereas in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. she herself states that she was bitterly beaten by the appellant at the time of occurrence. Her statement also differs as to use of country made pistol, which is not consistent statement. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 1.10.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that there was no possibility of false implication of the appellant in this matter. The appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belongs to weaker section of the society and a member of S.C./S.T. community. It is also submitted that although the I.O. of this case has collected no evidence in favour of the informant / victim but in this case the victim and her witnesses supported the prosecution version in their statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The bail application of the accused appellant is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

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 and also keeping in view the detention period and no criminal antecedents of the appellant, 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 Taranne Khan involved in Case Crime No.975 of 2021 under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj 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.

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 :- 17.7.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Taranne Khan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire 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 - Taranne Khan with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 30.1.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj and release the appellant on bail in Session Trial No.212 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.975 of 2021 under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj.

3. The prosecution has come forward with a case that on 18.11.2021 at 7:00 p.m. when the informant / victim of this case had gone to the field to ease herself, the present accused appellant carrying country made pistol with him threatened her for life and rape was committed with the lady. Some family members and villagers came over there and the accused fled away. However, the report of the victim was not lodged by the police and when she did not get any help from the higher officials, an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved and F.I.R. was lodged. However, after investigation the I.O. of the case submitted closure report in this matter, which was opposed by way of filing a protest petition by the informant / victim and the said protest petition was treated as criminal complaint by the court concerned and after making all the formalities, the court summoned the present accused appellant to face trial under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act.

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. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this matter. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the real fact of this case is that before some time, on the sake of treatment of her husband, the victim lady had borrowed some money from the appellant and when he demanded for the same, he was falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version and there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim lady under section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and contents of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the medical examination of the victim was performed about 1½ months after the alleged incident. There is no cogent evidence of any witness on record to support the prosecution case. It is also submitted that no injury was found over the body of the victim in her medical examination whereas in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. she herself states that she was bitterly beaten by the appellant at the time of occurrence. Her statement also differs as to use of country made pistol, which is not consistent statement. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 1.10.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that there was no possibility of false implication of the appellant in this matter. The appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belongs to weaker section of the society and a member of S.C./S.T. community. It is also submitted that although the I.O. of this case has collected no evidence in favour of the informant / victim but in this case the victim and her witnesses supported the prosecution version in their statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The bail application of the accused appellant is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

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 and also keeping in view the detention period and no criminal antecedents of the appellant, 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 Taranne Khan involved in Case Crime No.975 of 2021 under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj 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.

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 :- 17.7.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad