High Court · 2025

"Sri Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is reported to be out of station today. In view of above, the case is adjourned today. List/put up this case on 21.07.2025. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground including the ground of illness/out of station/sanctioned leave of the counsel for the opposite party No.2 and it would be heard and decided on merits even in absence of learned counsel for the opposite party No.2."

3. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2/complainant/victim to oppose the present appeal despite name of Shri Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri, Advocate has been shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party no.2/complainant/victim. In the aforesaid background, this Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits with the assistance of Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

5. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No. 61 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0005 of 2025, under Sections- 70(1), 331(6), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sandana, District- Sitapur.

6. While pressing the present appeal, it is stated that according to the story of the prosecution/allegations levelled in the FIR, lodged by opposite party no.2, registered as FIR No.0005 of 2025 at P.S.-Sandhana, under Sections 331(2), 74, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, on 30.11.2024 at about 11:00 P.M. in the house of the victim where her parents and other family members were present, the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. The appellant was accompanied with co-accused, namely, Rambhajan s/o Paal and Ramjash Goswami s/o Mansharam, who made casteist remarks and also said the victim to not shout, however, the victim shouted and on hearing the same, victim's father, mother and other family members appeared and, then the appellant and other co-accused fled away.

7. It is further stated that the aforesaid facts indicated in the FIR would indicate that only Section 74 B.N.S. (akin to Section 354 I.P.C.) would be attracted and Section 64 B.N.S. (akin to Section 376 I.P.C.) would not be attracted, which subsequently developed by the victim during investigation by making statement before the Magistrate concerned in terms of Section 183 B.N.S.S. (akin to Section 164 Cr.P.C.) and to corroborate the same, there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution as according to medico legal report victim no internal or external injury was sustained by the victim.

8. It is further stated that it appears that in order to get the pecuniary benefits from the State Exchequer the FIR was lodged by the victim against the appellant.

9. It is further stated that the appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 22.01.2025. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

10. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

11. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

12. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., impugned order, taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR as also in the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. as also the medical opinion according to which the story of the prosecution is not intact, and also the period of incarceration and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

13. Order dated 01.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No. 61 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0005 of 2025, under Sections- 70(1), 331(6), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sandana, District- Sitapur is hereby set aside.

14. Let the appellant- Shivam Gupta 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 each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) 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.P.C.

15. 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

16. 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. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"Sri Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is reported to be out of station today. In view of above, the case is adjourned today. List/put up this case on 21.07.2025. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground including the ground of illness/out of station/sanctioned leave of the counsel for the opposite party No.2 and it would be heard and decided on merits even in absence of learned counsel for the opposite party No.2."

3. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2/complainant/victim to oppose the present appeal despite name of Shri Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri, Advocate has been shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party no.2/complainant/victim. In the aforesaid background, this Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits with the assistance of Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

5. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No. 61 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0005 of 2025, under Sections- 70(1), 331(6), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sandana, District- Sitapur.

6. While pressing the present appeal, it is stated that according to the story of the prosecution/allegations levelled in the FIR, lodged by opposite party no.2, registered as FIR No.0005 of 2025 at P.S.-Sandhana, under Sections 331(2), 74, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, on 30.11.2024 at about 11:00 P.M. in the house of the victim where her parents and other family members were present, the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. The appellant was accompanied with co-accused, namely, Rambhajan s/o Paal and Ramjash Goswami s/o Mansharam, who made casteist remarks and also said the victim to not shout, however, the victim shouted and on hearing the same, victim's father, mother and other family members appeared and, then the appellant and other co-accused fled away.

7. It is further stated that the aforesaid facts indicated in the FIR would indicate that only Section 74 B.N.S. (akin to Section 354 I.P.C.) would be attracted and Section 64 B.N.S. (akin to Section 376 I.P.C.) would not be attracted, which subsequently developed by the victim during investigation by making statement before the Magistrate concerned in terms of Section 183 B.N.S.S. (akin to Section 164 Cr.P.C.) and to corroborate the same, there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution as according to medico legal report victim no internal or external injury was sustained by the victim.

8. It is further stated that it appears that in order to get the pecuniary benefits from the State Exchequer the FIR was lodged by the victim against the appellant.

9. It is further stated that the appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 22.01.2025. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

10. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

11. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

12. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., impugned order, taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR as also in the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. as also the medical opinion according to which the story of the prosecution is not intact, and also the period of incarceration and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

13. Order dated 01.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No. 61 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0005 of 2025, under Sections- 70(1), 331(6), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sandana, District- Sitapur is hereby set aside.

14. Let the appellant- Shivam Gupta 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 each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) 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.P.C.

15. 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

16. 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. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench