Prabal Dixit v. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime No

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the record.

2. On 23.09.2025 this Court had passed the following order: "1. As per office report dated 01.04.2025 which is based upon the letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 27.03.2025, the service upon the opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. However, when the case is taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No.2 to oppose the appeal. However, learned A.G.A. is present for the State.

2. In view of the above, the case is adjourned today.

3. List this case after Dussehra vacations.

4. It is made clear that on the next date fixed in the case, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the opposite party No. 2 and the matter would be heard and decided on merits and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call. "

3. Today when the case is taken up, neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that the opposite party No.2 is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

5. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and 2 CRLA No. 706 of 2025 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheeri in Bail Application No. 25/2025 (Prabal Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 940/2024, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(2). B.N.S. and Section 66-E IT Act, 3(1) (DA), 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheeri. whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per F.I.R. the prosecutrix was in physical relationship with appellant/applicant, and not a single word has been mentioned in respect of commission of rape by the appellant/applicant, later on story in respect of rape was develop during the course of investigation. The prosecutrix at every stage changed her version and during the course of investigation and she also refused to get medically examined of her internal part, thus the allegation of rape got demolished, when she refused for her medical examination, therefore, in absence of any medical examination it cannot be said that any injury has been caused on the internal and external part of the prosecutrix. He further submits that the entire prosecution story, as developed by the prosecutrix is only with the intention to defame the image of the appellant and his entire family in the society.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the parties appears to be consenting parties and no crime has been committed. From the prosecution version it does not reveal that the alleged offence was committed due to being member of the scheduled caste community.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant is languishing in jail since 09.01.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated order dated 14.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheeri in Bail Application No. 25/2025 (Prabal Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 940/2024, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(2). B.N.S. and Section 66-E IT Act, 3(1) (DA), 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheeri deserves to be set 3 CRLA No. 706 of 2025 aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant has given allurement to the prosecutrix and established physical relationship with her and prepare nude vedio of prosecutrix and also threatened to viral that photographs. The learned trial court has appreciated the prosecution version is rightful manner. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., including the allegations made in the F.I.R. no words were uttered by the prosecutrix to allege that the appellant committed rape on her. In the F.I.R. the informant (father of the prosecutrix) has averred that prior to marriage of her daughter she had physical relationship with appellant/applicant and not a single word has been mentioned in respect of commission of rape by the appellant/applicant, later on story in respect of rape was develop during the course of investigation; as per statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. she has consensual physical relationship with the appellant/applicant for a long time and the parties appears to be consenting parties and From the prosecution version it does not reveal that the alleged offence was committed due to being member of the scheduled caste community as well as that the appellant is in jail since 09.01.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheeri in Bail Application No. 25/2025 (Prabal Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 940/2024, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(2). B.N.S. and Section 66-E IT Act, 3(1) (DA), 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheeri is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Prabal Dixit be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions- 4 CRLA No. 706 of 2025 (1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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.

13. 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

14. 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 8, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the record.

2. On 23.09.2025 this Court had passed the following order: "1. As per office report dated 01.04.2025 which is based upon the letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 27.03.2025, the service upon the opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. However, when the case is taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No.2 to oppose the appeal. However, learned A.G.A. is present for the State.

2. In view of the above, the case is adjourned today.

3. List this case after Dussehra vacations.

4. It is made clear that on the next date fixed in the case, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the opposite party No. 2 and the matter would be heard and decided on merits and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call. "

3. Today when the case is taken up, neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that the opposite party No.2 is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

5. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and 2 CRLA No. 706 of 2025 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheeri in Bail Application No. 25/2025 (Prabal Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 940/2024, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(2). B.N.S. and Section 66-E IT Act, 3(1) (DA), 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheeri. whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per F.I.R. the prosecutrix was in physical relationship with appellant/applicant, and not a single word has been mentioned in respect of commission of rape by the appellant/applicant, later on story in respect of rape was develop during the course of investigation. The prosecutrix at every stage changed her version and during the course of investigation and she also refused to get medically examined of her internal part, thus the allegation of rape got demolished, when she refused for her medical examination, therefore, in absence of any medical examination it cannot be said that any injury has been caused on the internal and external part of the prosecutrix. He further submits that the entire prosecution story, as developed by the prosecutrix is only with the intention to defame the image of the appellant and his entire family in the society.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the parties appears to be consenting parties and no crime has been committed. From the prosecution version it does not reveal that the alleged offence was committed due to being member of the scheduled caste community.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant is languishing in jail since 09.01.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated order dated 14.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheeri in Bail Application No. 25/2025 (Prabal Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 940/2024, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(2). B.N.S. and Section 66-E IT Act, 3(1) (DA), 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheeri deserves to be set 3 CRLA No. 706 of 2025 aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant has given allurement to the prosecutrix and established physical relationship with her and prepare nude vedio of prosecutrix and also threatened to viral that photographs. The learned trial court has appreciated the prosecution version is rightful manner. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., including the allegations made in the F.I.R. no words were uttered by the prosecutrix to allege that the appellant committed rape on her. In the F.I.R. the informant (father of the prosecutrix) has averred that prior to marriage of her daughter she had physical relationship with appellant/applicant and not a single word has been mentioned in respect of commission of rape by the appellant/applicant, later on story in respect of rape was develop during the course of investigation; as per statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. she has consensual physical relationship with the appellant/applicant for a long time and the parties appears to be consenting parties and From the prosecution version it does not reveal that the alleged offence was committed due to being member of the scheduled caste community as well as that the appellant is in jail since 09.01.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheeri in Bail Application No. 25/2025 (Prabal Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 940/2024, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(2). B.N.S. and Section 66-E IT Act, 3(1) (DA), 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheeri is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Prabal Dixit be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions- 4 CRLA No. 706 of 2025 (1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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.

13. 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

14. 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 8, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench