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

2. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

3. 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

24.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1918 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 565 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 75(3), 351(3), 351(2), 352 BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow.

4. While pressing the present bail appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations leveled in the FIR, in relation to which the appellant, having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by learned AGA, and is in incarceration since 01.12.2024, are completely false and concocted.

5. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged at the behest of one Deepak Chauhan, which may be inferred from the fact that Deepak Chauhan, who was working as a male Staff Nurse and Physiotherapist at Sky Hospital and Neuro Centre, Lucknow (in short, "Hospital"), where the victim/Opposite Party No.2 was also employed as a Staff Nurse (ANM), was terminated w.e.f. 16.11.2024 vide order dated 16.11.2024 passed by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Agarwal, the authority concerned of the Hospital. Subsequently, Opposite Party No.2/victim was also terminated w.e.f. 27.11.2024 vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the same authority and after the aforesaid termination orders, an FIR was lodged on 30.11.2024 as FIR No. 0565 of 2024, alleging that on the night of 18.11.2024, the appellant forcibly made physical 2 CRLA No. 1322 of 2025 relations with the victim/Opposite Party No.2 and the victim subsequently stated before the Magistrate, in terms of Section 183 of the BNSS, that the alleged crime was committed on the night of 28.11.2024, a date after the termination order.

7. Further stated that to support the story of the prosecution, there is no medical evidence.

8. It is also stated that if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken on its face value, then, it would reflect that it is a case of establishing physical relations on the pretext of solemnizing the marriage and therefore also the case of the present appellant would cover under the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110.

9. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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.

10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and also before the Court concerned.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances 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.

13. The impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1918 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 565 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 75(3), 351(3), 351(2), 352 BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

14. Let appellant-Nikhil Kumar @ Chhotu Yadav 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). 3 CRLA No. 1322 of 2025 (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.

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 1, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

3. 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

24.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1918 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 565 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 75(3), 351(3), 351(2), 352 BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow.

4. While pressing the present bail appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations leveled in the FIR, in relation to which the appellant, having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by learned AGA, and is in incarceration since 01.12.2024, are completely false and concocted.

5. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged at the behest of one Deepak Chauhan, which may be inferred from the fact that Deepak Chauhan, who was working as a male Staff Nurse and Physiotherapist at Sky Hospital and Neuro Centre, Lucknow (in short, "Hospital"), where the victim/Opposite Party No.2 was also employed as a Staff Nurse (ANM), was terminated w.e.f. 16.11.2024 vide order dated 16.11.2024 passed by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Agarwal, the authority concerned of the Hospital. Subsequently, Opposite Party No.2/victim was also terminated w.e.f. 27.11.2024 vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the same authority and after the aforesaid termination orders, an FIR was lodged on 30.11.2024 as FIR No. 0565 of 2024, alleging that on the night of 18.11.2024, the appellant forcibly made physical 2 CRLA No. 1322 of 2025 relations with the victim/Opposite Party No.2 and the victim subsequently stated before the Magistrate, in terms of Section 183 of the BNSS, that the alleged crime was committed on the night of 28.11.2024, a date after the termination order.

7. Further stated that to support the story of the prosecution, there is no medical evidence.

8. It is also stated that if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken on its face value, then, it would reflect that it is a case of establishing physical relations on the pretext of solemnizing the marriage and therefore also the case of the present appellant would cover under the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110.

9. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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.

10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and also before the Court concerned.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances 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.

13. The impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1918 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 565 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 75(3), 351(3), 351(2), 352 BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

14. Let appellant-Nikhil Kumar @ Chhotu Yadav 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). 3 CRLA No. 1322 of 2025 (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.

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 1, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench