High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record.

3. The prosecution case starts with the allegation that on 11.07.2024 at about 5.00 A.M. the minor daughter of the informant when she was going to ease was missing. Police was informed and no accused was named in the F.I.R. However, the informant lodged an F.I.R. in Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj to the effect that minor daughter of the informant came back to her house and told her parents that Puneet and Bhole took her to Delhi where sexual offence was committed by them and both the accused persons alongwith Kuldeep, brother of Puneet/present appellant, started creating pressure upon her and her family members for the settlement in the case and she committed suicide due to abetment and instigation caused by the accused persons. At this, the F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not named the present accused appellant to commit rape upon her. It is further submitted that only role assigned to the appellant is that he was threatening the victim of this case for the settlement in the case and that was the reason she committed suicide due to abetment and instigation on the part of the accused appellant. It is next submitted that although Criminal Appeal No. 11285 of 2024 filed by co- accused Puneet was dismissed and bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 but as a matter of fact, he was assigned the role of committing rape upon the poor girl but only role assigned to the appellant is to cause pressure upon the victim for the settlement in the case. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to establish the offence under Section 107 B.N.S. and Section 3(2(V) of SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant was never charged to commit rape upon the victim and this fact has been wrongly mentioned in the order dated 03.01.2025. It is also submitted that there is no credible evidence to the effect that the appellant was creating pressure upon the victim for the settlement in the matter. 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. Appellant is languishing in jail since 25.07.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 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 AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that Criminal Appeal No. 11285 of 2024 filed by co- accused Puneet was dismissed and bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 but they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no role of committing rape upon the victim has been assigned to the appellant.

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, role of the appellant, this 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 Kuldeep involved in Case Crime No. 321 of 2024, under Section 107 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Saurikh, 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.

10. 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 :- 5.2.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record.

3. The prosecution case starts with the allegation that on 11.07.2024 at about 5.00 A.M. the minor daughter of the informant when she was going to ease was missing. Police was informed and no accused was named in the F.I.R. However, the informant lodged an F.I.R. in Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj to the effect that minor daughter of the informant came back to her house and told her parents that Puneet and Bhole took her to Delhi where sexual offence was committed by them and both the accused persons alongwith Kuldeep, brother of Puneet/present appellant, started creating pressure upon her and her family members for the settlement in the case and she committed suicide due to abetment and instigation caused by the accused persons. At this, the F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not named the present accused appellant to commit rape upon her. It is further submitted that only role assigned to the appellant is that he was threatening the victim of this case for the settlement in the case and that was the reason she committed suicide due to abetment and instigation on the part of the accused appellant. It is next submitted that although Criminal Appeal No. 11285 of 2024 filed by co- accused Puneet was dismissed and bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 but as a matter of fact, he was assigned the role of committing rape upon the poor girl but only role assigned to the appellant is to cause pressure upon the victim for the settlement in the case. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to establish the offence under Section 107 B.N.S. and Section 3(2(V) of SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant was never charged to commit rape upon the victim and this fact has been wrongly mentioned in the order dated 03.01.2025. It is also submitted that there is no credible evidence to the effect that the appellant was creating pressure upon the victim for the settlement in the matter. 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. Appellant is languishing in jail since 25.07.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 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 AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that Criminal Appeal No. 11285 of 2024 filed by co- accused Puneet was dismissed and bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 but they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no role of committing rape upon the victim has been assigned to the appellant.

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, role of the appellant, this 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 Kuldeep involved in Case Crime No. 321 of 2024, under Section 107 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Saurikh, 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.

10. 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 :- 5.2.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad