High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2 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 Shajid Afasar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kushinagar at Padrauna in Bail Application No.2272 of 2024 and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.144 of 2024 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Chaura Khas, District Kushinagar.

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

4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the present accused appellant is the neighbourer of the informant and he was trying all the tactics to unsettle the marriage of the daughter of the informant and when the informant alongwith his daughter and other family members went to the house of the appellant to inquire into this matter, he hurled abuses to all of them with the caste related remarks and also made an assault upon the informant and fled away. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in this matter.

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 prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., was further exaggerated by the informant in her statement under sections 180 and 183 BNSS and it was alleged that the appellant committed rape as well upon the daughter of the informant and also tried for conversion of her religion. It is further submitted that the appellant is gentle person and had been taken three months training with the Chief Executive Officer of Uttar Pradesh Pashudhan Vikash Parishad, Luckow on 21.5.2024 to 19.6.2024, 20.6.2024 to 13.8.2024 and 20.8.2024 to 24.8.2024 and relevant certificate and attendance register have also been filed by him. It is also submitted that a police complaint was lodged by the maternal grandfather of the victim with the same allegations against the appellant and his family members, which was registered as case crime no.241 of 2023 but subsequently he moved an application before the police that the parties have entered into compromise and he does not want to press the criminal complaint on 8.1.2024 and the aggrieved victim also submitted her affidavit before the police on 9.1.2024 but on account of animosity of the village, again the present F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R., no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present appellant, who is a major lady. It is also submitted that in the earlier report, the police after investigation submitted the final report and no offence was found to be made out against the appellant. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. During investigation, an exaggerated and concocted story has been brought before the Investigating Officer. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix although undergone her medical examination but however she was not ready for her internal examination. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 2.9.2024 and no criminal history of the appellant was brought on record by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record in right perspective and bail application was rejected in a cursory manner. It is also 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 opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal but however could not dispute the factum of previous report filed against the appellant and subsequent denial on the part of the informant and victim of that case to the facts of said report.

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. 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, 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.

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

10. Let the appellant Shajid Afasar involved in Case Crime No.144 of 2024 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Chaura Khas, District Kushinagar, 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 :- 30.5.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2 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 Shajid Afasar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kushinagar at Padrauna in Bail Application No.2272 of 2024 and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.144 of 2024 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Chaura Khas, District Kushinagar.

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

4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the present accused appellant is the neighbourer of the informant and he was trying all the tactics to unsettle the marriage of the daughter of the informant and when the informant alongwith his daughter and other family members went to the house of the appellant to inquire into this matter, he hurled abuses to all of them with the caste related remarks and also made an assault upon the informant and fled away. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in this matter.

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 prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., was further exaggerated by the informant in her statement under sections 180 and 183 BNSS and it was alleged that the appellant committed rape as well upon the daughter of the informant and also tried for conversion of her religion. It is further submitted that the appellant is gentle person and had been taken three months training with the Chief Executive Officer of Uttar Pradesh Pashudhan Vikash Parishad, Luckow on 21.5.2024 to 19.6.2024, 20.6.2024 to 13.8.2024 and 20.8.2024 to 24.8.2024 and relevant certificate and attendance register have also been filed by him. It is also submitted that a police complaint was lodged by the maternal grandfather of the victim with the same allegations against the appellant and his family members, which was registered as case crime no.241 of 2023 but subsequently he moved an application before the police that the parties have entered into compromise and he does not want to press the criminal complaint on 8.1.2024 and the aggrieved victim also submitted her affidavit before the police on 9.1.2024 but on account of animosity of the village, again the present F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R., no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present appellant, who is a major lady. It is also submitted that in the earlier report, the police after investigation submitted the final report and no offence was found to be made out against the appellant. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. During investigation, an exaggerated and concocted story has been brought before the Investigating Officer. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix although undergone her medical examination but however she was not ready for her internal examination. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 2.9.2024 and no criminal history of the appellant was brought on record by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record in right perspective and bail application was rejected in a cursory manner. It is also 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 opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal but however could not dispute the factum of previous report filed against the appellant and subsequent denial on the part of the informant and victim of that case to the facts of said report.

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. 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, 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.

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

10. Let the appellant Shajid Afasar involved in Case Crime No.144 of 2024 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Chaura Khas, District Kushinagar, 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 :- 30.5.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad