High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1.Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Lallu @ Deepak Kashyap with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.6.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.23 of 2024 (session trial no.402 of 2024) under Sections 384, 376, 506 IPC and 3(2)5, 3 (2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the lady victim, who was unable to conceive, went to a Baba for her treatment alongwith the accused appellant on his request. They stayed in a hotel where a sum of Rs.20,000/- and aadhar card of the victim was taken by the accused appellant and against her wish, rape was committed with her by the accused appellant in the room of the hotel and some obscene video was also prepared by the accused appellant. On the basis of the said obscene video he repeatedly committed the same offence and subsequently the lady victim disclosed all the incidents to her husband and F.I.R. was lodged and now charge-sheet has been submitted.

5. 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 totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the whole conduct of the prosecutrix is quite unnatural and not plausible. It has been admitted in the F.I.R. that she on her own free will had gone with the appellant to a Baba. It is also submitted that if rape was committed for the first time with the prosecutrix against her wishes, it was never plausible that she again went with the appellant despite the previous experience of physical assault. It is also submitted that there is no obscene video on record allegedly prepared by the appellant nor it is a part of the case diary. It is also submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex. Prosecutrix is aged about 35 years whereas whereas appellant is a young boy of 25 years. He is in jail since 11.2.2024 having no criminal antecedents 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), Kanpur Nagar. 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.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that the victim visited the hotel with the accused appellant on the false pretext made by him to take her for her treatment but she never consented for any type of physical relation with the accused appellant. It is also submitted that since she was very much afraid of the obscene video which was threatened to be made viral by the accused appellant, she visited to the hotel again with the accused appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant committed the alleged offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record to the effect that the prosecutrix had been a consenting party with the accused appellant. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. Offence is very grave and serious in nature and the prayer for rejection of the bail application and dismissal of appeal as well has been made.

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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the victim, who is a married lady, never gave her consent for physical relations with the appellant and on the basis of some alleged obscene video she was blackmailed/threatened by the accused appellant and rape was committed with her repeatedly and that there is nothing on record to show that the victim was having some strained relations with her husband, it appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 20.6.2024 is affirmed. No ground is made out to release the accused appellant on bail by allowing the present appeal.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1.Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Lallu @ Deepak Kashyap with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.6.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.23 of 2024 (session trial no.402 of 2024) under Sections 384, 376, 506 IPC and 3(2)5, 3 (2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the lady victim, who was unable to conceive, went to a Baba for her treatment alongwith the accused appellant on his request. They stayed in a hotel where a sum of Rs.20,000/- and aadhar card of the victim was taken by the accused appellant and against her wish, rape was committed with her by the accused appellant in the room of the hotel and some obscene video was also prepared by the accused appellant. On the basis of the said obscene video he repeatedly committed the same offence and subsequently the lady victim disclosed all the incidents to her husband and F.I.R. was lodged and now charge-sheet has been submitted.

5. 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 totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the whole conduct of the prosecutrix is quite unnatural and not plausible. It has been admitted in the F.I.R. that she on her own free will had gone with the appellant to a Baba. It is also submitted that if rape was committed for the first time with the prosecutrix against her wishes, it was never plausible that she again went with the appellant despite the previous experience of physical assault. It is also submitted that there is no obscene video on record allegedly prepared by the appellant nor it is a part of the case diary. It is also submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex. Prosecutrix is aged about 35 years whereas whereas appellant is a young boy of 25 years. He is in jail since 11.2.2024 having no criminal antecedents 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), Kanpur Nagar. 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.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that the victim visited the hotel with the accused appellant on the false pretext made by him to take her for her treatment but she never consented for any type of physical relation with the accused appellant. It is also submitted that since she was very much afraid of the obscene video which was threatened to be made viral by the accused appellant, she visited to the hotel again with the accused appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant committed the alleged offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record to the effect that the prosecutrix had been a consenting party with the accused appellant. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. Offence is very grave and serious in nature and the prayer for rejection of the bail application and dismissal of appeal as well has been made.

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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the victim, who is a married lady, never gave her consent for physical relations with the appellant and on the basis of some alleged obscene video she was blackmailed/threatened by the accused appellant and rape was committed with her repeatedly and that there is nothing on record to show that the victim was having some strained relations with her husband, it appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 20.6.2024 is affirmed. No ground is made out to release the accused appellant on bail by allowing the present appeal.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad