High Court · 2025

Appellant :- Pramod Chaubey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwini Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ikshwaku Srivastava 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 Pramod Chaubey with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.269 of 2024 under Sections 313, 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Section 2/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur.

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. As per prosecution story, in the year 2006, the minor victim, who belongs to SC/ST community, was enticed away by the appellant on the false pretext of marriage and she was taken to Mumbai by the appellant where the appellant on the same pretext made and developed physical relations with the lady victim and she also gave birth to a son who was confined somewhere by the accused appellant and in view of that she was compelled to make compromise with her dignity. Subsequently, being aggrieved with the harassment, cruelty and torture caused by the accused appellant, the lady victim was compelled to lodge an F.I.R. under under Sections 313, 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Section 2/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act whereupon investigation started, however, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act.

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. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this matter. It is also submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between the parties. This is an admitted story of the prosecution that since the year 2006 the prosecutrix was living with the appellant and they were living as husband and wife and marriage between the two was performed in temple and out of their wedlock, her son was also born. It is also submitted that during investigation the I.O. did not collect any evidence in respect of offence under section 313 IPC and Section 2/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. of this case and in the statement made by the victim under section 180 B.N.S.S., no allegation of rape has been levelled against the appellant and it is for the first time in her statement recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S. the allegation of rape was levelled by the prosecutrix against the present appellant. It is also submitted that during the period of about 18 years when both sides had been living together, no complaint was made anywhere by the prosecutrix of this case and this fact has not been explained in the entire case diary as to why the victim raised no objection and made no protest against the appellant during the period when both were living together. 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), Jaunpur. 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 also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 28.9.2024. Criminal history of a solitary case shown against the appellant has been explained. 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 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the prosecutrix was enticed away by the accused appellant and she was minor at that time and forcibly sexual relations were made and developed by the accused appellant but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that during the period of about 18 years the prosecutrix made absolutely no complaint to any of the authorities against the present appellant and continued living with him. It is also submitted that the victim of this case is a film actress and you-tuber and is well known about her rights and the law.

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 Pramod Chaubey involved in case crime no.269 of 2024 under Sections 313, 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Section 2/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, 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 :- 19.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Pramod Chaubey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwini Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ikshwaku Srivastava 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 Pramod Chaubey with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.269 of 2024 under Sections 313, 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Section 2/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur.

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. As per prosecution story, in the year 2006, the minor victim, who belongs to SC/ST community, was enticed away by the appellant on the false pretext of marriage and she was taken to Mumbai by the appellant where the appellant on the same pretext made and developed physical relations with the lady victim and she also gave birth to a son who was confined somewhere by the accused appellant and in view of that she was compelled to make compromise with her dignity. Subsequently, being aggrieved with the harassment, cruelty and torture caused by the accused appellant, the lady victim was compelled to lodge an F.I.R. under under Sections 313, 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Section 2/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act whereupon investigation started, however, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act.

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. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this matter. It is also submitted that it is a case of consensual relationship between the parties. This is an admitted story of the prosecution that since the year 2006 the prosecutrix was living with the appellant and they were living as husband and wife and marriage between the two was performed in temple and out of their wedlock, her son was also born. It is also submitted that during investigation the I.O. did not collect any evidence in respect of offence under section 313 IPC and Section 2/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. of this case and in the statement made by the victim under section 180 B.N.S.S., no allegation of rape has been levelled against the appellant and it is for the first time in her statement recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S. the allegation of rape was levelled by the prosecutrix against the present appellant. It is also submitted that during the period of about 18 years when both sides had been living together, no complaint was made anywhere by the prosecutrix of this case and this fact has not been explained in the entire case diary as to why the victim raised no objection and made no protest against the appellant during the period when both were living together. 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), Jaunpur. 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 also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 28.9.2024. Criminal history of a solitary case shown against the appellant has been explained. 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 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the prosecutrix was enticed away by the accused appellant and she was minor at that time and forcibly sexual relations were made and developed by the accused appellant but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that during the period of about 18 years the prosecutrix made absolutely no complaint to any of the authorities against the present appellant and continued living with him. It is also submitted that the victim of this case is a film actress and you-tuber and is well known about her rights and the law.

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 Pramod Chaubey involved in case crime no.269 of 2024 under Sections 313, 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Section 2/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, 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 :- 19.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad