High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and 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- Deepak with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Aligarh in Bail Application No. 3769 of 2024.

3. AS per prosecution story after the death of the husband of the victim she come in contact with the present accused-appellant whose wife also left him away and the present appellant on the false pretext of marriage fraudulently taken a huge amount of money from the informant-victim and also established physical relations with the victim many times but subsequently he solemnized his marriage with some other lady. F.I.R. was lodged on 05.08.2024 and the investigation started and now charge sheet has been submitted in respect of the present accused-appellant.

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 establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the present case is based upon the consensual relationship of two major persons of opposite sex. The physical relation, if any, was never made by the appellant for any false pretext of marriage, rather physical relationship between the two were made and developed with the free consent and free will of prosecutrix herself who was a widow lady having two children. It is also submitted that since there was no promise to marry with the prosecutrix and it was the case of consensual relationship no offence of rape was committed by the appellant. It is further submitted that there is no evidence at all to the effect that a single penny was ever paid by the victim to the appellant. It is lastly submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 06.08.2024. 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. 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 and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that since the victim of this case was a widow lady and wife of the appellant had left away him, he made a contact with the victim on the false pretext of marriage. He was only involved in lust and subsequently he refused to marry with the victim and solemnized the marriage with some other lady. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 03.09.2024.

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 fact that the prosecutrix in this case is a widow lady and having two children and it appears to be a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex and there is no evidence at this stage that the prosecutrix ever protested for forceful physical relations made by the appellant, the clean criminal character of the appellant who is having no criminal history to his credit and his incarceration period as well, 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.

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

9. Let the appellant- Deepak involved in Case Crime No. 568 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station- Banna Devi, District Aligarh 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.

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 :- 11.3.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and 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- Deepak with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Aligarh in Bail Application No. 3769 of 2024.

3. AS per prosecution story after the death of the husband of the victim she come in contact with the present accused-appellant whose wife also left him away and the present appellant on the false pretext of marriage fraudulently taken a huge amount of money from the informant-victim and also established physical relations with the victim many times but subsequently he solemnized his marriage with some other lady. F.I.R. was lodged on 05.08.2024 and the investigation started and now charge sheet has been submitted in respect of the present accused-appellant.

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 establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the present case is based upon the consensual relationship of two major persons of opposite sex. The physical relation, if any, was never made by the appellant for any false pretext of marriage, rather physical relationship between the two were made and developed with the free consent and free will of prosecutrix herself who was a widow lady having two children. It is also submitted that since there was no promise to marry with the prosecutrix and it was the case of consensual relationship no offence of rape was committed by the appellant. It is further submitted that there is no evidence at all to the effect that a single penny was ever paid by the victim to the appellant. It is lastly submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 06.08.2024. 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. 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 and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that since the victim of this case was a widow lady and wife of the appellant had left away him, he made a contact with the victim on the false pretext of marriage. He was only involved in lust and subsequently he refused to marry with the victim and solemnized the marriage with some other lady. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 03.09.2024.

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 fact that the prosecutrix in this case is a widow lady and having two children and it appears to be a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex and there is no evidence at this stage that the prosecutrix ever protested for forceful physical relations made by the appellant, the clean criminal character of the appellant who is having no criminal history to his credit and his incarceration period as well, 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.

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

9. Let the appellant- Deepak involved in Case Crime No. 568 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station- Banna Devi, District Aligarh 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.

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 :- 11.3.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad