Pankaj v. State of U.P.) arising out of Special Session Trial No

"1. Mr. Gyan Dev Tiwari, Advocate has filed Vakalatanama on behalf of victim, which is taken on record.

2. During arguments, Mr Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has pointed out that the victim has turned hostile as she has stated that she is having love affairs with the appellant and nothing wrong has been done by the appellant, this statement has been given by the victim before the Court under the threat and pressure of the accused.

3. Under the circumstances, victim is directed to appear in person before this Court by the next date to verify the above aspect.

3. Put-up again as fresh on 18.09.2025."

2. In compliance of order dated 16.9.2025, the victim along with her mother is present before this Court in person and duly verified by her counsel.

3. Upon query made to the victim, whether she has given her statement before the trial court under the threat and pressure of the accused, she denied the same and stated that she went with the appellant on her own sweet will and nothing wrong has been done to her by the appellant and resided in the house of maternal aunt of the appellant.

4. On 16.9.2025, the conduct of Mr Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 to compel this Court that the victim has given her statement before the trial court under the threat and pressure of the accused/appellant, was not proper, therefore, this conduct may be treated as 2 CRLA No. 7574 of 2025 professional misconduct under the Advocate Act.

5. Heard Mr. Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar holding brief of Mr. Gyan Dev Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA as well as perused the entire record.

6. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Pankaj to set aside the impugned bail rejection order dated

07.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Auraiya, in Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.1243 of 2025 (Pankaj Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Special Session Trial No.1292 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.464 of 2024, under Sections 64, 333 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District- Auraiya during the pendency of the trial before learned court below,

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per prosecution story, in the night of 2/3.09.2024, the appellant entered in the house of the informant and started teasing her niece and when she shouted, the appellant ran away. There are major contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 & 183 B.N.S. He further submits that the victim was examined as P.W.2 before the court below and has turned hostile. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that after the present impugned FIR, another false FIR bearing Case Crime No.0475 of 2024, under Section 87 BNS has been filed by the mother of the victim against the appellant and his relatives just to get money from the State Government. He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 3.10.2024 having no criminal history.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail.

9. 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. 3 CRLA No. 7574 of 2025

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 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.

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

12. Let the appellant- Pankaj, involved in aforesaid case crime number 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.

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. September 18, 2025 Krishna* (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

"1. Mr. Gyan Dev Tiwari, Advocate has filed Vakalatanama on behalf of victim, which is taken on record.

2. During arguments, Mr Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has pointed out that the victim has turned hostile as she has stated that she is having love affairs with the appellant and nothing wrong has been done by the appellant, this statement has been given by the victim before the Court under the threat and pressure of the accused.

3. Under the circumstances, victim is directed to appear in person before this Court by the next date to verify the above aspect.

3. Put-up again as fresh on 18.09.2025."

2. In compliance of order dated 16.9.2025, the victim along with her mother is present before this Court in person and duly verified by her counsel.

3. Upon query made to the victim, whether she has given her statement before the trial court under the threat and pressure of the accused, she denied the same and stated that she went with the appellant on her own sweet will and nothing wrong has been done to her by the appellant and resided in the house of maternal aunt of the appellant.

4. On 16.9.2025, the conduct of Mr Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 to compel this Court that the victim has given her statement before the trial court under the threat and pressure of the accused/appellant, was not proper, therefore, this conduct may be treated as 2 CRLA No. 7574 of 2025 professional misconduct under the Advocate Act.

5. Heard Mr. Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar holding brief of Mr. Gyan Dev Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA as well as perused the entire record.

6. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Pankaj to set aside the impugned bail rejection order dated

07.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Auraiya, in Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.1243 of 2025 (Pankaj Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Special Session Trial No.1292 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.464 of 2024, under Sections 64, 333 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District- Auraiya during the pendency of the trial before learned court below,

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per prosecution story, in the night of 2/3.09.2024, the appellant entered in the house of the informant and started teasing her niece and when she shouted, the appellant ran away. There are major contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 & 183 B.N.S. He further submits that the victim was examined as P.W.2 before the court below and has turned hostile. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that after the present impugned FIR, another false FIR bearing Case Crime No.0475 of 2024, under Section 87 BNS has been filed by the mother of the victim against the appellant and his relatives just to get money from the State Government. He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 3.10.2024 having no criminal history.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail.

9. 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. 3 CRLA No. 7574 of 2025

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 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.

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

12. Let the appellant- Pankaj, involved in aforesaid case crime number 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.

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. September 18, 2025 Krishna* (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad