Havaldar v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No

2. Heard Shri Hari Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

3. 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 26.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.2557 of 2025 (Ansu Singh @ Havaldar Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.113/2025, under Sections 69, 316(2), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 (1)(da), (dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. - P.G.I., District - Lucknow, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow.

4. 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. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that the story of the prosecution is completely false and concocted. Elaborating the same, it is stated that according to the version of the F.I.R. dated 09.03.2025, physical relations were established by the appellant after giving assurance to solemnized. In other words, on the pretext of false promise of marriage the appellant established physical relations with the victim/opposite party No.2. On account of the same the victim got pregnant and thereafter the marriage was solemnized by the appellant with the victim. This F.I.R. dated 09.03.2025 was lodged against the appellant and his brother.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that almost with the similar allegations the victim/opposite party No.2 subsequently lodged another F.I.R. No.0223/2025 on 07.05.2025 at Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow against one Sumit Kumar, Gyanu and Nanhu indicating that Sumit Kumar established physical relations on the pretext of false promise of marriage after coming into contact in the month of March, 2025.

6. It is also stated that from the aforesaid, it can be deduced that the F.I.R.s were lodged just to get pecuniary benefit from the State exchequer.

7. It is next submitted that if the allegations leveled against the appellant by the victim are taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, possibility of conviction of appellant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (s) rendered 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; 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.

8. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 09.03.2025. 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 A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 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 A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 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 A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, F.I.R.s, impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 09.03.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

12. Order dated 26.04.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.2557 of 2025 (Ansu Singh @ Havaldar Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.113/2025, under Sections 69, 316(2), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 (1)(da), (dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. - P.G.I., District - Lucknow, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant - Anshu Singh @ Havaldar 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 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. Order Date :- 22.7.2025/ML MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Hari Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

3. 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 26.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.2557 of 2025 (Ansu Singh @ Havaldar Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.113/2025, under Sections 69, 316(2), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 (1)(da), (dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. - P.G.I., District - Lucknow, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow.

4. 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. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that the story of the prosecution is completely false and concocted. Elaborating the same, it is stated that according to the version of the F.I.R. dated 09.03.2025, physical relations were established by the appellant after giving assurance to solemnized. In other words, on the pretext of false promise of marriage the appellant established physical relations with the victim/opposite party No.2. On account of the same the victim got pregnant and thereafter the marriage was solemnized by the appellant with the victim. This F.I.R. dated 09.03.2025 was lodged against the appellant and his brother.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that almost with the similar allegations the victim/opposite party No.2 subsequently lodged another F.I.R. No.0223/2025 on 07.05.2025 at Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow against one Sumit Kumar, Gyanu and Nanhu indicating that Sumit Kumar established physical relations on the pretext of false promise of marriage after coming into contact in the month of March, 2025.

6. It is also stated that from the aforesaid, it can be deduced that the F.I.R.s were lodged just to get pecuniary benefit from the State exchequer.

7. It is next submitted that if the allegations leveled against the appellant by the victim are taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, possibility of conviction of appellant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (s) rendered 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; 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.

8. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 09.03.2025. 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 A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 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 A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 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 A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, F.I.R.s, impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 09.03.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

12. Order dated 26.04.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.2557 of 2025 (Ansu Singh @ Havaldar Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.113/2025, under Sections 69, 316(2), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 (1)(da), (dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. - P.G.I., District - Lucknow, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant - Anshu Singh @ Havaldar 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 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. Order Date :- 22.7.2025/ML MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench