Ranvijay Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Bahraich And

Order

- "Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the instant bail appeal. However, Office Report dated 21.05.2025 and Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State indicate that service of notice is sufficient upon private opposite party No. 2. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned today. List/put up this case immediately after Dusshera Vacation. It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in this case, the case would not be adjourned on account of non-appearance of private opposite party No. 2 and it would be heard and decided on merits."

2. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to oppose the bail appeal. However, learned counsel for the State is present.

3. Heard.

4. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 2509/12A/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 674 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 87, 127(2) BNS and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Khairighat, District-Bahraich.

5. It is stated that the appellant is in jail since 31.08.2024 and in this view of 2 CRLA No. 1328 of 2025 the matter, the period of incarceration would come to about 14 months and the trial is not proceeding in the matter as required under the law and therefore, taking note of period of incarceration as also the law with regard to enlarging an accused on bail, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that taking note of period of incarceration as also the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), according to which the bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

7. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that long period of detention is cause of action and he has submitted that second bail can be considered on this fresh ground. He has invited attention of this Court 3 CRLA No. 1328 of 2025 towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505. The relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner." (Emphasis supplied)

9. It is further stated that the prosecutrix/victim, an adult, on her own volition on 25.08.2024 accompanied the appellant to Delhi where she lived appellant

28.08.2024 thereafter

29.08.2024 prosecutrix/victim came with the appellant to the house of aunt of appellant at Bahraich. According to the case of the prosecution, co- accused Dileep Lodhi established physical relations with prosecutrix/victim first forcibly and thereafter the appellant at the house of aunt of appellant.

10. It is also stated that to support the allegation of commission of crime i.e. rape there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution. If the story of the prosecution is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be presumed that crime as indicated in the FIR was not committed by the appellant as the place of crime is the house of aunt of appellant when other family members were present.

11. Further stated that co-accused namely Dileep Lodhi, against whom allegation of commission of crime has been levelled by prosecutrix/victim, has already been enlarged on by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3249 of 2024.

12. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also that the appellant is not a position to position to tamper the evidence and influence the witness of the prosecution, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

13. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's 4 CRLA No. 1328 of 2025 counsel including that co-accused namely Dileep Lodhi has already been enlarged on by this Court.

14. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation as also that co-accused namely Dileep Lodhi has already been enlarged on by this Court.

15. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) of the victim and contents of the FIR as 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.

16. The order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 2509/12A/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 674 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 87, 127(2) BNS and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Khairighat, District-Bahraich, is hereby set aside.

17. Let appellant- Ranvijay Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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 5 CRLA No. 1328 of 2025 the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

18. 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. November 15, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to oppose the bail appeal. However, learned counsel for the State is present.

3. Heard.

4. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 2509/12A/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 674 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 87, 127(2) BNS and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Khairighat, District-Bahraich.

5. It is stated that the appellant is in jail since 31.08.2024 and in this view of 2 CRLA No. 1328 of 2025 the matter, the period of incarceration would come to about 14 months and the trial is not proceeding in the matter as required under the law and therefore, taking note of period of incarceration as also the law with regard to enlarging an accused on bail, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that taking note of period of incarceration as also the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), according to which the bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

7. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that long period of detention is cause of action and he has submitted that second bail can be considered on this fresh ground. He has invited attention of this Court 3 CRLA No. 1328 of 2025 towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505. The relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner." (Emphasis supplied)

9. It is further stated that the prosecutrix/victim, an adult, on her own volition on 25.08.2024 accompanied the appellant to Delhi where she lived appellant

28.08.2024 thereafter

29.08.2024 prosecutrix/victim came with the appellant to the house of aunt of appellant at Bahraich. According to the case of the prosecution, co- accused Dileep Lodhi established physical relations with prosecutrix/victim first forcibly and thereafter the appellant at the house of aunt of appellant.

10. It is also stated that to support the allegation of commission of crime i.e. rape there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution. If the story of the prosecution is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be presumed that crime as indicated in the FIR was not committed by the appellant as the place of crime is the house of aunt of appellant when other family members were present.

11. Further stated that co-accused namely Dileep Lodhi, against whom allegation of commission of crime has been levelled by prosecutrix/victim, has already been enlarged on by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3249 of 2024.

12. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also that the appellant is not a position to position to tamper the evidence and influence the witness of the prosecution, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

13. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's 4 CRLA No. 1328 of 2025 counsel including that co-accused namely Dileep Lodhi has already been enlarged on by this Court.

14. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation as also that co-accused namely Dileep Lodhi has already been enlarged on by this Court.

15. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) of the victim and contents of the FIR as 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.

16. The order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 2509/12A/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 674 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 87, 127(2) BNS and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Khairighat, District-Bahraich, is hereby set aside.

17. Let appellant- Ranvijay Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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 5 CRLA No. 1328 of 2025 the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

18. 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. November 15, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench