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

Nisha Srivastava G.A. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (I.A. No.01 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant (Anil Kumar Verma) in Case Crime No. 444 of 2024, Under Section 333, 64(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(1)(Da) & 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Zaidpur, District-Barabanki, was rejected. The Applicant, Anil Kumar Verma, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2025 against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki, which rejected his bail application in connection with Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024 under stringent sections of the BNS (333, 64(1), 351(3), etc.) and the SC/ST Act. The appellant, who has been in judicial custody since 03.01.2025, asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this "totally false and fabricated" case. The core defence is that the incident stems from a money dispute of Rs.20,000/- and was retaliated by the victim's husband through physical assault on the appellant. This claim is strongly supported by the medical evidence, which shows no signs of rape and explicitly records the victim's Hymen as 'Old, Torned, healed'. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and Case Crime No.187 of 2024 shown by the State has no relevance with him which relates to some Anil Gautam. The defence submits that the prosecution story is further rendered unreliable by material contradictions between the F.I.R. (which alleges the time of incident to be 1:00 PM) and the victim's statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. (where a different time is mentioned and the husband is shown assaulting the appellant). The appellant contends that there is no corroborative evidence of rape, and the applicability of the 2 CRLA No. 765 of 2025 SC/ST Act sections is also highly questionable. Given the strong contradictions in the evidence, the appellant, who belongs to a poor family and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with evidence, asserts that the lower court's rejection was routine and erroneous, and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail pending trial. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2025 deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki (rejecting Bail Application No. 445/2025) deserves to be set aside. The order was passed in the matter of Anil Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024, under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki. Consequently, the appellant, having been in jail since 03.01.2025, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the bail application/appeal of the accused, Anil Kumar Verma. The appeal challenges the rejection order dated

03.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offense alleged in connection with Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024 under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 BNS, and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The victim is stated to be a 35-year-old married woman. The lower court's rejection order, which is being challenged, notes the severity of the alleged offense of rape and the likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses if released on bail. The documents confirm the accused has been languishing in jail since 03.01.2025. Furthermore, the prosecution has emphasized that the Charge Sheet has already been submitted in the matter. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court notes that the underlying criminal case is Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024 at P.S. Zaidpur, Barabanki, involving the Appellant/Accused, Anil Kumar Verma, who has been in jail since 03.01.2025 over the alleged offenses under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 BNS, and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The alleged victim is stated to be a married lady of approximately 35 years. The Appellant/Accused's defense contends the FIR story is "totally false and fabricated," asserting the entire incident is based on a money dispute of Rs.20,000/- and his subsequent assault by the victim's husband. Crucially, the defense highlights the victim's medical examination on 01.01.2025 found her Hymen to be 'Old, Torned, healed', with no signs of rape or external injuries (other than a contusion on the thigh). The defense also points out material contradictions between the F.I.R. and the victim's statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., arguing that the lower court failed to properly appreciate this material evidence, and therefore, its rejection order passed on 3 CRLA No. 765 of 2025

03.02.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

03.02.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 445 of 2025; Anil Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., arising out of Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024, under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Zaidpur, District Barabanki is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Anil Kumar Verma, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024 (as per the Charge Sheet, not 195 of 2025) under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 BNS and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount 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. 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 27, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nisha Srivastava G.A. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (I.A. No.01 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant (Anil Kumar Verma) in Case Crime No. 444 of 2024, Under Section 333, 64(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(1)(Da) & 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Zaidpur, District-Barabanki, was rejected. The Applicant, Anil Kumar Verma, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2025 against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki, which rejected his bail application in connection with Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024 under stringent sections of the BNS (333, 64(1), 351(3), etc.) and the SC/ST Act. The appellant, who has been in judicial custody since 03.01.2025, asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this "totally false and fabricated" case. The core defence is that the incident stems from a money dispute of Rs.20,000/- and was retaliated by the victim's husband through physical assault on the appellant. This claim is strongly supported by the medical evidence, which shows no signs of rape and explicitly records the victim's Hymen as 'Old, Torned, healed'. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and Case Crime No.187 of 2024 shown by the State has no relevance with him which relates to some Anil Gautam. The defence submits that the prosecution story is further rendered unreliable by material contradictions between the F.I.R. (which alleges the time of incident to be 1:00 PM) and the victim's statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. (where a different time is mentioned and the husband is shown assaulting the appellant). The appellant contends that there is no corroborative evidence of rape, and the applicability of the 2 CRLA No. 765 of 2025 SC/ST Act sections is also highly questionable. Given the strong contradictions in the evidence, the appellant, who belongs to a poor family and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with evidence, asserts that the lower court's rejection was routine and erroneous, and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail pending trial. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2025 deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki (rejecting Bail Application No. 445/2025) deserves to be set aside. The order was passed in the matter of Anil Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024, under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki. Consequently, the appellant, having been in jail since 03.01.2025, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the bail application/appeal of the accused, Anil Kumar Verma. The appeal challenges the rejection order dated

03.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offense alleged in connection with Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024 under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 BNS, and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The victim is stated to be a 35-year-old married woman. The lower court's rejection order, which is being challenged, notes the severity of the alleged offense of rape and the likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses if released on bail. The documents confirm the accused has been languishing in jail since 03.01.2025. Furthermore, the prosecution has emphasized that the Charge Sheet has already been submitted in the matter. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court notes that the underlying criminal case is Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024 at P.S. Zaidpur, Barabanki, involving the Appellant/Accused, Anil Kumar Verma, who has been in jail since 03.01.2025 over the alleged offenses under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 BNS, and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The alleged victim is stated to be a married lady of approximately 35 years. The Appellant/Accused's defense contends the FIR story is "totally false and fabricated," asserting the entire incident is based on a money dispute of Rs.20,000/- and his subsequent assault by the victim's husband. Crucially, the defense highlights the victim's medical examination on 01.01.2025 found her Hymen to be 'Old, Torned, healed', with no signs of rape or external injuries (other than a contusion on the thigh). The defense also points out material contradictions between the F.I.R. and the victim's statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., arguing that the lower court failed to properly appreciate this material evidence, and therefore, its rejection order passed on 3 CRLA No. 765 of 2025

03.02.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

03.02.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 445 of 2025; Anil Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., arising out of Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024, under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Zaidpur, District Barabanki is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Anil Kumar Verma, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 0444 of 2024 (as per the Charge Sheet, not 195 of 2025) under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(3), 115(2), 352 BNS and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount 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. 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 27, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench