High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Rejoinder 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 - Narendra Singh Chaudhary with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.10.2024 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Budaun and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.242 of 2024 (S.S.T. No.1880 of 2024) under Sections 64, 87, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)5A, 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun.

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

5. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 31.7.2024 at about 1:00 A.M., the present accused appellant, who deals with some community loan system, came to the house of the informant and on the false pretext of marriage took her with him to Behjoi and committed rape with her. The victim was medically examined and F.I.R. was lodged.

6. 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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that only on account of village animosity, the appellant has been falsely roped in this case. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement made by the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. It is also submitted that in fact it is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex. Appellant never made any physical relation with the victim of this case against her wishes or consent. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. The essential ingredients to establish the offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case and no caste related word has been remarked by the appellant to the victim. It is also submitted that there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. without any explanation to it. It is also submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet, the prosecution started producing its evidence and the prosecutrix of this case has deposed that she, on her own free will and consent, went to Raj Palace Hotel, Behjoi on call of the appellant and physical relations were made there between the two with the consent of the victim. It is also submitted that many twisted statements have been made by the prosecutrix herself during the course of her deposition before the court. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that Pawan Kumar, the informant has also been declared hostile and does not support the prosecution case at all. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 2.8.2024. 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), Gorakhpur. 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 lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

7. 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 this factual aspect of the matter that the informant and victim of this case, who appeared before the court as witness, did not support the prosecution case in material terms.

8. 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.

9. 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 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.

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

11. Let the appellant Narendra Singh Chaudhary involved in Case Crime No.242 of 2024 (S.S.T. No.1880 of 2024) under Sections 64, 87, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)5A, 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun 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.

12. 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 :- 4.2.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Rejoinder 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 - Narendra Singh Chaudhary with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.10.2024 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Budaun and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.242 of 2024 (S.S.T. No.1880 of 2024) under Sections 64, 87, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)5A, 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun.

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

5. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 31.7.2024 at about 1:00 A.M., the present accused appellant, who deals with some community loan system, came to the house of the informant and on the false pretext of marriage took her with him to Behjoi and committed rape with her. The victim was medically examined and F.I.R. was lodged.

6. 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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that only on account of village animosity, the appellant has been falsely roped in this case. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement made by the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. It is also submitted that in fact it is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex. Appellant never made any physical relation with the victim of this case against her wishes or consent. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. The essential ingredients to establish the offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case and no caste related word has been remarked by the appellant to the victim. It is also submitted that there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. without any explanation to it. It is also submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet, the prosecution started producing its evidence and the prosecutrix of this case has deposed that she, on her own free will and consent, went to Raj Palace Hotel, Behjoi on call of the appellant and physical relations were made there between the two with the consent of the victim. It is also submitted that many twisted statements have been made by the prosecutrix herself during the course of her deposition before the court. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that Pawan Kumar, the informant has also been declared hostile and does not support the prosecution case at all. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 2.8.2024. 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), Gorakhpur. 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 lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

7. 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 this factual aspect of the matter that the informant and victim of this case, who appeared before the court as witness, did not support the prosecution case in material terms.

8. 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.

9. 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 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.

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

11. Let the appellant Narendra Singh Chaudhary involved in Case Crime No.242 of 2024 (S.S.T. No.1880 of 2024) under Sections 64, 87, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)5A, 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun 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.

12. 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 :- 4.2.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad