Pappu Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And

respondent and Shri Uttar Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 336 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi.

3. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that according to the FIR lodged against unknown person by opposite party no.2, the victim/opposite party no.3 on her own volition left her parental house on 24.09.2024 and she was about 20 years old and the same itself indicates that victim was in affair and therefore she on her own volition left her parental house and this aspect of the case can also be inferred from the fact that FIR was lodged after delay on

26.09.2024.

4. It is further stated that statement of the victim was recorded after being recovered by the Investigating Officer on 27.09.2024 and thereafter the statement was recorded by concerned Magistrate in terms of section 183 2 CRLA No. 1702 of 2025 BNSS wherein the victim levelled allegations related to establishing physical relation with her against her wishes against appellant-Pappu Maurya, Ashish and Golu and therefore, the Section 70(1) BNS which relates to gang rape was added.

5. It is also stated that the statements were given by the victim under the pressure of opposite party no. 2 and therefore, she is not a sterling and this aspect of the case can be inferred from the fact that to corroborate the offence under Section 70(1) BNS the prosecution has having no medical evidence. In this regard, reference has been made to medico-legal report, according to which, no injury was found over the body of the deceased external or internal.

6. It is further submitted that victim, an adult, was having relationship and on her own volition, left her house could also be interfered and deduced from the Annexure No. 8, which is also a medical report of the victim according to which the pregnancy was found positive.

7. It is also stated that the appellant has been falsely implicated only being the friend of co-accused Golu with whom the victim was in affair and the same is evident from the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS according to which the victim and the co-accused Golu were in contact for a period of about two years prior to lodging of FIR against unknown person.

8. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 30.01.2025 and has no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Uttar Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

10. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses including the statement 3 CRLA No. 1702 of 2025 of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS.

11. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the medical opinion and the age of the victim and her statements which prima facie indicate that victim was in touch/contact of co-accused Golu as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

12. Order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 336 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi is set aside.

13. Let appellant- Pappu Maurya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (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 will 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. 4 CRLA No. 1702 of 2025

14. 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

15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. September 8, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

respondent and Shri Uttar Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 336 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi.

3. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that according to the FIR lodged against unknown person by opposite party no.2, the victim/opposite party no.3 on her own volition left her parental house on 24.09.2024 and she was about 20 years old and the same itself indicates that victim was in affair and therefore she on her own volition left her parental house and this aspect of the case can also be inferred from the fact that FIR was lodged after delay on

26.09.2024.

4. It is further stated that statement of the victim was recorded after being recovered by the Investigating Officer on 27.09.2024 and thereafter the statement was recorded by concerned Magistrate in terms of section 183 2 CRLA No. 1702 of 2025 BNSS wherein the victim levelled allegations related to establishing physical relation with her against her wishes against appellant-Pappu Maurya, Ashish and Golu and therefore, the Section 70(1) BNS which relates to gang rape was added.

5. It is also stated that the statements were given by the victim under the pressure of opposite party no. 2 and therefore, she is not a sterling and this aspect of the case can be inferred from the fact that to corroborate the offence under Section 70(1) BNS the prosecution has having no medical evidence. In this regard, reference has been made to medico-legal report, according to which, no injury was found over the body of the deceased external or internal.

6. It is further submitted that victim, an adult, was having relationship and on her own volition, left her house could also be interfered and deduced from the Annexure No. 8, which is also a medical report of the victim according to which the pregnancy was found positive.

7. It is also stated that the appellant has been falsely implicated only being the friend of co-accused Golu with whom the victim was in affair and the same is evident from the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS according to which the victim and the co-accused Golu were in contact for a period of about two years prior to lodging of FIR against unknown person.

8. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 30.01.2025 and has no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Uttar Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

10. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses including the statement 3 CRLA No. 1702 of 2025 of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS.

11. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the medical opinion and the age of the victim and her statements which prima facie indicate that victim was in touch/contact of co-accused Golu as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

12. Order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 336 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi is set aside.

13. Let appellant- Pappu Maurya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (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 will 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. 4 CRLA No. 1702 of 2025

14. 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

15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. September 8, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench