Court with regard to the ground of bail in the judgment of Satender Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another

2. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is permitted to correct the particulars of the opposite party No.2 during course of the day.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1135 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0056/2025, under Sections 351 (2), 352, 333, 74, 64 (1) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)(da), 3 (1) (dha), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Raniganj, District - Pratapgarh.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

6. He further submitted that according to the F.I.R. lodged at Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh on 08.03.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0056/2025, the appellant committed offence against the opposite party No.2 on 28.02.2025.

7. The aforesaid indicates that the F.I.R. was lodged after the delay of 08 days and the same also indicates that the opposite party No.2 has lodged this F.I.R. after considering all aspects of the case.

8. It is next submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. aforesaid, which is the basis of pending criminal proceedings, would show that the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of opposite party No.2 by pushing her to the ground and also hurled abuses and on alarm being raised by her the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence, which is the house of the opposite party No.2.

9. The F.I.R., taking note of the aforesaid facts in brief, was registered as Case Crime No.0056/2025, under Sections 352, 351(2), 74, 333 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1) (gha), 3 (1)(da) of SC/ST Act.

10. It is stated that the offence as indicated in the F.I.R. entails maximum punishment up to 07 years and therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of principle settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the ground of bail in the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10 SCC 51, and therefore, during investigation the opposite party No.2 leveled the allegation against the appellant to attract the offence under Section 64(1) of the B.N.S. (akin to Section 376 I.P.C.). Thus, the story of the prosecution is not intact.

11. It is also submitted that after due medical examination the doctor found no injury on the body of the victim/opposite party No.2, who is a married lady.

12. It is further submitted that the story of the prosecution as indicted in the F.I.R. as also indicted by the victim during the investigation is completely false and bogus. It is for the reason that (i) the appellant committed crime as per the prosecution story in the house of the opposite party No.1 at about 8.00 P.M. on 28.02.2025 and at this time the father-in-law and the children of the victim were sleeping, (ii) even on alarm being raised by the victim they kept sleeping, and (iii) the victim was pushed to the ground and she was raped but no injury was found by the doctor concerned after due medical examination.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that it appears that the appellant was implicated to settle the property dispute with regard the property purchased by the co-accused Bal Krishna (cousin of the appellant), who actually was not present at the place and time of the incident, and therefore, the Investigating Officer dropped his name and filed the charge sheet against the appellant only on the basis of statement of the opposite party No.2.

14. Lastly, it is submitted that in these circumstances, the appellant who has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 04.04.2025 is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

15. 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.

16. 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., as well as other relevant documents.

17. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances, which includes medical opinion as also the fact that the victim changed the story narrated in FIR, lodged after delay of about 08 days, during investigation 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.

18. Order dated 29.04.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1135 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0056/2025, under Sections 351 (2), 352, 333, 74, 64 (1) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)(da), 3 (1) (dha), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Raniganj, District - Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

19. Let the appellant - Krishna Ram Giri @ Pai Giri 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.

20. 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.

21. 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. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

2. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is permitted to correct the particulars of the opposite party No.2 during course of the day.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1135 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0056/2025, under Sections 351 (2), 352, 333, 74, 64 (1) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)(da), 3 (1) (dha), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Raniganj, District - Pratapgarh.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

6. He further submitted that according to the F.I.R. lodged at Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh on 08.03.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0056/2025, the appellant committed offence against the opposite party No.2 on 28.02.2025.

7. The aforesaid indicates that the F.I.R. was lodged after the delay of 08 days and the same also indicates that the opposite party No.2 has lodged this F.I.R. after considering all aspects of the case.

8. It is next submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. aforesaid, which is the basis of pending criminal proceedings, would show that the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of opposite party No.2 by pushing her to the ground and also hurled abuses and on alarm being raised by her the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence, which is the house of the opposite party No.2.

9. The F.I.R., taking note of the aforesaid facts in brief, was registered as Case Crime No.0056/2025, under Sections 352, 351(2), 74, 333 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1) (gha), 3 (1)(da) of SC/ST Act.

10. It is stated that the offence as indicated in the F.I.R. entails maximum punishment up to 07 years and therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of principle settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the ground of bail in the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10 SCC 51, and therefore, during investigation the opposite party No.2 leveled the allegation against the appellant to attract the offence under Section 64(1) of the B.N.S. (akin to Section 376 I.P.C.). Thus, the story of the prosecution is not intact.

11. It is also submitted that after due medical examination the doctor found no injury on the body of the victim/opposite party No.2, who is a married lady.

12. It is further submitted that the story of the prosecution as indicted in the F.I.R. as also indicted by the victim during the investigation is completely false and bogus. It is for the reason that (i) the appellant committed crime as per the prosecution story in the house of the opposite party No.1 at about 8.00 P.M. on 28.02.2025 and at this time the father-in-law and the children of the victim were sleeping, (ii) even on alarm being raised by the victim they kept sleeping, and (iii) the victim was pushed to the ground and she was raped but no injury was found by the doctor concerned after due medical examination.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that it appears that the appellant was implicated to settle the property dispute with regard the property purchased by the co-accused Bal Krishna (cousin of the appellant), who actually was not present at the place and time of the incident, and therefore, the Investigating Officer dropped his name and filed the charge sheet against the appellant only on the basis of statement of the opposite party No.2.

14. Lastly, it is submitted that in these circumstances, the appellant who has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 04.04.2025 is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

15. 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.

16. 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., as well as other relevant documents.

17. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances, which includes medical opinion as also the fact that the victim changed the story narrated in FIR, lodged after delay of about 08 days, during investigation 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.

18. Order dated 29.04.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1135 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0056/2025, under Sections 351 (2), 352, 333, 74, 64 (1) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)(da), 3 (1) (dha), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Raniganj, District - Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

19. Let the appellant - Krishna Ram Giri @ Pai Giri 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.

20. 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.

21. 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. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench