✦ High Court of India · 27 Oct 2025

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

Case Details High Court of India · 27 Oct 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
27 Oct 2025
Bench
PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Length
1,159 words

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 999 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 70 (1), 351(3), 123 B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Rae Bareli, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution case, the appellant/applicant along with two unknown persons forcibly took away the victim, committed rape on her, and when she became unconscious, they left her there.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no mention of the date and time of the alleged occurrence in the F.I.R., nor is the name of any eyewitness mentioned in it. He further submits that as per statement of the victim, she is major and commission of rape has been developed and charges levelled against the appellant. He next submits that in fact there is enmity between the parties in respect of land dispute and in this regard on the same date of alleged occurrence the appellant was arrested and challaned under Sections 170/126/135 B.N.S.S. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj. He also submits that in respect of land dispute between the parties one Original Suit with regard to cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction had been previously filed before the Civil Judge, 2 CRLA No. 1661 of 2025 Junior Division, Dalmau, District Rae bareli and in the counter blast, the instant false case has been lodged by the mother of the victim. He also submits that no mark of injury was found on the body of the victim.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no recovery of any country made revolver from the possession of the appellant. He next submits that, as per the allegation, the victim was hung into the well, yet no injury was found on her body.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 24.02.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 999 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 70 (1), 351(3), 123 B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Rae Bareli deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. submit that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. and he is the main culprit. In the F.I.R., it is specifically mentioned that the appellant-accused along with other co-accused persons forcibly took the victim away. They further submit that the informant (mother of the victim) in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has stated that on 23.02.2025 when her daughter after watering the field was returning to her house at about 6.30 P.M. she was thrown away by the accused persons and when she became conscious, she told her that appellant and other co-accused persons forcefully took her away and on the pointing of "katta" they gave her tea to drink and thereafter committed rape upon her.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. next submit that the victim in her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 183 B.N.S.S., has specifically told her age 17 years and stated that the appellant and other co-accused persons came on the way and took her forcefully away and on the pointing of "katta" (country made revolver) gave 3 CRLA No. 1661 of 2025 tea to drink, thereafter they committed rape on her one by one and they also threatened her by way of hanging into the well.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. next submit that as per medical report of the victim, the hymen was found torn. They further alleged that the appellant has committed serious offence and if the appellant is enlarged on bail, he will influence the witnesses.

11. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. and the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation against the appellant that he along with other co-accused came and took the victim forcefully away; the victim in the statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that he is 17 years of age, the appellant and other co- accused persons on the pointing of "katta" gave her tea to drink and thereafter the appellant and other accused persons committed rape on her one by one and they also hanged her into the well; as per medical report hymen was found torn, there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. that the appellant is not entitled to get any relief by this Court.

12. The order dated 26.04.2025 does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Thus, the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 does not need any interference by this Court.

13. In view of above, bail application of the appellant is rejected.

14. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

15. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case. October 27, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 999 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 70 (1), 351(3), 123 B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Rae Bareli, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution case, the appellant/applicant along with two unknown persons forcibly took away the victim, committed rape on her, and when she became unconscious, they left her there.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no mention of the date and time of the alleged occurrence in the F.I.R., nor is the name of any eyewitness mentioned in it. He further submits that as per statement of the victim, she is major and commission of rape has been developed and charges levelled against the appellant. He next submits that in fact there is enmity between the parties in respect of land dispute and in this regard on the same date of alleged occurrence the appellant was arrested and challaned under Sections 170/126/135 B.N.S.S. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj. He also submits that in respect of land dispute between the parties one Original Suit with regard to cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction had been previously filed before the Civil Judge, 2 CRLA No. 1661 of 2025 Junior Division, Dalmau, District Rae bareli and in the counter blast, the instant false case has been lodged by the mother of the victim. He also submits that no mark of injury was found on the body of the victim.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no recovery of any country made revolver from the possession of the appellant. He next submits that, as per the allegation, the victim was hung into the well, yet no injury was found on her body.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 24.02.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 999 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 70 (1), 351(3), 123 B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Rae Bareli deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. submit that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. and he is the main culprit. In the F.I.R., it is specifically mentioned that the appellant-accused along with other co-accused persons forcibly took the victim away. They further submit that the informant (mother of the victim) in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has stated that on 23.02.2025 when her daughter after watering the field was returning to her house at about 6.30 P.M. she was thrown away by the accused persons and when she became conscious, she told her that appellant and other co-accused persons forcefully took her away and on the pointing of "katta" they gave her tea to drink and thereafter committed rape upon her.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. next submit that the victim in her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 183 B.N.S.S., has specifically told her age 17 years and stated that the appellant and other co-accused persons came on the way and took her forcefully away and on the pointing of "katta" (country made revolver) gave 3 CRLA No. 1661 of 2025 tea to drink, thereafter they committed rape on her one by one and they also threatened her by way of hanging into the well.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. next submit that as per medical report of the victim, the hymen was found torn. They further alleged that the appellant has committed serious offence and if the appellant is enlarged on bail, he will influence the witnesses.

11. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. and the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation against the appellant that he along with other co-accused came and took the victim forcefully away; the victim in the statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that he is 17 years of age, the appellant and other co- accused persons on the pointing of "katta" gave her tea to drink and thereafter the appellant and other accused persons committed rape on her one by one and they also hanged her into the well; as per medical report hymen was found torn, there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. that the appellant is not entitled to get any relief by this Court.

12. The order dated 26.04.2025 does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Thus, the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 does not need any interference by this Court.

13. In view of above, bail application of the appellant is rejected.

14. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

15. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case. October 27, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments