State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (I.A. No.01 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal, numbered 643 of 2025, has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant (Saiyyad Sameer) in Case Crime No. 0471 of 2024, Under Section 64, 351(3), 352, 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Sultanpur, was rejected. The Applicant/Accused, Saiyyad Sameer, has filed a Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 2025 against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur, rejecting his second bail application. He has been in jail since 27.11.2024 in connection with Case Crime No. 471 of 2024 under Sections 64, 351(3), 352, 69 BNS, and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The genesis of the controversy is the alleged act of sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage with the victim, who is stated to be a major adult girl (19 years old). The applicant asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a "totally false and fabricated" story, arguing that the whole incident occurred in consent with the victim/respondent. The defence highlights that the Medical Examination of the victim was found to be negative for fresh internal or external injury, and noted only an old tear of the hymen with healed up edges. The defence explicitly challenges the applicability of the Section 64 BNS (Rape), arguing that the charge of rape is not made out in view of the medical evidence and the voluntary consent of the major victim, making it primarily a case of Breach of Promise or Section 69 BNS (Deceit). The applicant further contends that the prosecution story is false because there was a significant delay of 26 days in lodging the FIR, which was not reasonably explained. 2 CRLA No. 643 of 2025 The defence also points out that the lower court rejected the bail application in a "very routine manner" without duly considering the lack of evidence of force. The applicant has no criminal history, is in custody for a long period since 27.11.2024, and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, deserving to be enlarged on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. P.A. Act), Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 398 of 2025, Saiyyad Sameer Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 471 of 2024, under Section 64, 351(3), 352, 69 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant would vehemently oppose the bail application of the accused, Saiyyad Sameer, in connection with Case Crime No. 471 of 2024. The application challenges the order dated

13.02.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offense alleged against the victim, Khusbu, who is stated to be a major adult girl (19 years old). The FIR was lodged under Sections 64, 69 BNS, and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, among others, for the alleged sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage and use of caste-based abuse. The documents confirm the accused has been languishing in jail since

27.11.2024. The prosecution is bound by the fact that the victim's Medical Examination Report (MLE) found no fresh internal or external injury. The Special Judge, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments regarding the old tear of the hymen with healed up edges and the legal principle of mala fide intention in the promise of marriage, rejected the bail application, and that order is being challenged via this appeal. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, this Court finds that the primary legal dispute is the applicability of Section 64 BNS (Rape) in the context of a promise to marry. The Court must make a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex where a promise of marriage is broken, which requires an examination of the accused's intention at the very inception of the promise. In this context, this Court is guided by the established legal principle which holds that: "Consent may be express or implied, or obtained by coercion or misrepresentation. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court must scrutinize very carefully whether the accused had mala fide motives and only gave a false promise with the object of satisfying his lust, which amounts to deception. There 3 CRLA No. 643 of 2025 is a difference between a mere breach of promise and not fulfilling a false promise ab initio. The accused can be held guilty of rape only if the Court comes to the conclusion that his intentions had a mala fide design and clandestine motives." Applying this principle to the present case, the Court finds that the issue is primarily one of deceit and breach of promise (Section 69 BNS) rather than force or violence (Section 64 BNS). This finding is supported by the crucial facts that the victim is a major, consenting adult who voluntarily came into contact with the appellant, and the Medical Examination Report explicitly found no fresh internal or external injuries to support the charge of forcible sexual assault. Given the appellant's custody since

27.11.2024, his lack of criminal history, the contradictory nature of the evidence, and the likely delay in the conclusion of the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of rejection is unsustainable and bail ought to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

13.02.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. P.A. Act), Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 398 of 2025; Saiyyad Sameer Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 471 of 2024, under Section 64, 351(3), 352, 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur is set aside. Let the appellant- Saiyyad Sameer, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 471 of 2024 on his furnishing personal bond two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. 4 CRLA No. 643 of 2025 In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 16, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (I.A. No.01 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal, numbered 643 of 2025, has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant (Saiyyad Sameer) in Case Crime No. 0471 of 2024, Under Section 64, 351(3), 352, 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Sultanpur, was rejected. The Applicant/Accused, Saiyyad Sameer, has filed a Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 2025 against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur, rejecting his second bail application. He has been in jail since 27.11.2024 in connection with Case Crime No. 471 of 2024 under Sections 64, 351(3), 352, 69 BNS, and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The genesis of the controversy is the alleged act of sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage with the victim, who is stated to be a major adult girl (19 years old). The applicant asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a "totally false and fabricated" story, arguing that the whole incident occurred in consent with the victim/respondent. The defence highlights that the Medical Examination of the victim was found to be negative for fresh internal or external injury, and noted only an old tear of the hymen with healed up edges. The defence explicitly challenges the applicability of the Section 64 BNS (Rape), arguing that the charge of rape is not made out in view of the medical evidence and the voluntary consent of the major victim, making it primarily a case of Breach of Promise or Section 69 BNS (Deceit). The applicant further contends that the prosecution story is false because there was a significant delay of 26 days in lodging the FIR, which was not reasonably explained. 2 CRLA No. 643 of 2025 The defence also points out that the lower court rejected the bail application in a "very routine manner" without duly considering the lack of evidence of force. The applicant has no criminal history, is in custody for a long period since 27.11.2024, and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, deserving to be enlarged on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. P.A. Act), Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 398 of 2025, Saiyyad Sameer Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 471 of 2024, under Section 64, 351(3), 352, 69 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant would vehemently oppose the bail application of the accused, Saiyyad Sameer, in connection with Case Crime No. 471 of 2024. The application challenges the order dated

13.02.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offense alleged against the victim, Khusbu, who is stated to be a major adult girl (19 years old). The FIR was lodged under Sections 64, 69 BNS, and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, among others, for the alleged sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage and use of caste-based abuse. The documents confirm the accused has been languishing in jail since

27.11.2024. The prosecution is bound by the fact that the victim's Medical Examination Report (MLE) found no fresh internal or external injury. The Special Judge, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments regarding the old tear of the hymen with healed up edges and the legal principle of mala fide intention in the promise of marriage, rejected the bail application, and that order is being challenged via this appeal. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, this Court finds that the primary legal dispute is the applicability of Section 64 BNS (Rape) in the context of a promise to marry. The Court must make a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex where a promise of marriage is broken, which requires an examination of the accused's intention at the very inception of the promise. In this context, this Court is guided by the established legal principle which holds that: "Consent may be express or implied, or obtained by coercion or misrepresentation. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court must scrutinize very carefully whether the accused had mala fide motives and only gave a false promise with the object of satisfying his lust, which amounts to deception. There 3 CRLA No. 643 of 2025 is a difference between a mere breach of promise and not fulfilling a false promise ab initio. The accused can be held guilty of rape only if the Court comes to the conclusion that his intentions had a mala fide design and clandestine motives." Applying this principle to the present case, the Court finds that the issue is primarily one of deceit and breach of promise (Section 69 BNS) rather than force or violence (Section 64 BNS). This finding is supported by the crucial facts that the victim is a major, consenting adult who voluntarily came into contact with the appellant, and the Medical Examination Report explicitly found no fresh internal or external injuries to support the charge of forcible sexual assault. Given the appellant's custody since

27.11.2024, his lack of criminal history, the contradictory nature of the evidence, and the likely delay in the conclusion of the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of rejection is unsustainable and bail ought to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

13.02.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. P.A. Act), Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 398 of 2025; Saiyyad Sameer Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 471 of 2024, under Section 64, 351(3), 352, 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur is set aside. Let the appellant- Saiyyad Sameer, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 471 of 2024 on his furnishing personal bond two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. 4 CRLA No. 643 of 2025 In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 16, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench