Sachin Sahu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

1. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Session Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.839 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Section 70(1), 352, 69, 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Maurawan, District- Unnao.

3. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted the allegations levelled in the FIR are completely incorrect and the same could be deduced from bare reading of F.I.R., the statement(s) of victim, aged about 19 years, recorded in terms of Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S.

4. Based upon aforesaid including the statement(s) of victim, it is further stated that the victim, was in fact in affair with the appellant.

5. It is stated that from the allegations levelled by the victim, it is apparent that the appellant established physical relation on the pretext of solemnizing marriage and as such the case of appellant is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of U.P. and Another; (2021) 7 SCC; Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another; 2022 SCC Online SC 2110 and Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another; 2025 SCC Online SC 1230.

6. It is also submitted that medical opinion also does not support the case of the prosecution as doctor concerned upon due examination opined that "No internal injury noted at the time of examination on any private part of the body".

7. With regard to age it is stated that the age on which prosecution is placing 2 CRLA No. 1391 of 2025 reliance is not correct and the same is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties, which is required as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, and at this stage of bail, benefit of the judgment in this regard be extended in favour of the appellant. Reliance has been placed on judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397.

8. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025 and chance of conviction of the appellant in view of the facts of the case are extremely bleak. 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.

9. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

10. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

11. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including the fact that the victim appears to be major and the appellant is in jail since 19.02.2025 and also the time in which trial would be concluded and also 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.

12. Order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Session Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.839 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Section 70(1), 352, 69, 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Maurawan, District- Unnao is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Sachin Sahu 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 3 CRLA No. 1391 of 2025 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.

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 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. September 26, 2025 Anand/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Session Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.839 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Section 70(1), 352, 69, 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Maurawan, District- Unnao.

3. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted the allegations levelled in the FIR are completely incorrect and the same could be deduced from bare reading of F.I.R., the statement(s) of victim, aged about 19 years, recorded in terms of Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S.

4. Based upon aforesaid including the statement(s) of victim, it is further stated that the victim, was in fact in affair with the appellant.

5. It is stated that from the allegations levelled by the victim, it is apparent that the appellant established physical relation on the pretext of solemnizing marriage and as such the case of appellant is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of U.P. and Another; (2021) 7 SCC; Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another; 2022 SCC Online SC 2110 and Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another; 2025 SCC Online SC 1230.

6. It is also submitted that medical opinion also does not support the case of the prosecution as doctor concerned upon due examination opined that "No internal injury noted at the time of examination on any private part of the body".

7. With regard to age it is stated that the age on which prosecution is placing 2 CRLA No. 1391 of 2025 reliance is not correct and the same is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties, which is required as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, and at this stage of bail, benefit of the judgment in this regard be extended in favour of the appellant. Reliance has been placed on judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397.

8. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025 and chance of conviction of the appellant in view of the facts of the case are extremely bleak. 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.

9. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

10. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

11. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including the fact that the victim appears to be major and the appellant is in jail since 19.02.2025 and also the time in which trial would be concluded and also 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.

12. Order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Session Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.839 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Section 70(1), 352, 69, 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Maurawan, District- Unnao is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Sachin Sahu 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 3 CRLA No. 1391 of 2025 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.

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 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. September 26, 2025 Anand/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench