High Court · 2025

Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No.846 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0053 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 127(2), 76, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baba Bazar, District- Ayodhya.

4. While pressing the present appeal, it is stated that the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 05.04.2025 for committing no offence.

5. It is further stated that the appellant has been implicated by victim/opposite party no.2 just to gain pecuniary benefit of State Exchequer. Elaborating the false implication against the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant stated that according to FIR lodged by victim/opposite party no.2, i.e. FIR/Case Crime No.0053 of 2025, on 05.04.2025 at P.S.- Baba Bazar, District- Ayodhya, the victim/opposite party no.2 on 02.04.2025 was sleeping near the dairy, owned by the appellant, and about 9:00 P.M. the appellant asked her to accompany him to dairy and in the said dairy the appellant committed rape with her. However, this story is not intact. In this regard, it is stated that before the Magistrate concerned the statement of the victim/opposite party no.2 was recorded in terms of Section 183 of B.N.S.S. and according to this statement the appellant assaulted the victim/opposite party no.2 with kicks and also abused her. This statement further indicates that some altercation took place between the victim/opposite party no.2 and the appellant as the victim/opposite party no.2 was asking the appellant to go somewhere.

6. It is further stated that the statement(s) of the independent witnesses are table made statement(s) as the same are verbatim and, therefore, the same are not reliable.

7. Further submission is that according to the case set up, the victim/opposite party no.2, who is aged about 35 years, ought to have been sustained some injury at the time of alleged incident, but medical opinion indicates that no injury was found on the body of victim/opposite party no.2, after due medical examination. 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.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

9. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

10. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the fact(s) that (i) victim/opposite party no.2 is major, i.e. about 35 years, (ii) after due medical examination, no injury was found on the body of victim/opposite party no.2, (iii) the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 05.04.2025 and (iv) 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.

11. Order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No.846 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.53 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 127(2), 76, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baba Bazar, District- Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Ankur 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.

13. 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

14. 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 :- 5.8.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No.846 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0053 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 127(2), 76, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baba Bazar, District- Ayodhya.

4. While pressing the present appeal, it is stated that the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 05.04.2025 for committing no offence.

5. It is further stated that the appellant has been implicated by victim/opposite party no.2 just to gain pecuniary benefit of State Exchequer. Elaborating the false implication against the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant stated that according to FIR lodged by victim/opposite party no.2, i.e. FIR/Case Crime No.0053 of 2025, on 05.04.2025 at P.S.- Baba Bazar, District- Ayodhya, the victim/opposite party no.2 on 02.04.2025 was sleeping near the dairy, owned by the appellant, and about 9:00 P.M. the appellant asked her to accompany him to dairy and in the said dairy the appellant committed rape with her. However, this story is not intact. In this regard, it is stated that before the Magistrate concerned the statement of the victim/opposite party no.2 was recorded in terms of Section 183 of B.N.S.S. and according to this statement the appellant assaulted the victim/opposite party no.2 with kicks and also abused her. This statement further indicates that some altercation took place between the victim/opposite party no.2 and the appellant as the victim/opposite party no.2 was asking the appellant to go somewhere.

6. It is further stated that the statement(s) of the independent witnesses are table made statement(s) as the same are verbatim and, therefore, the same are not reliable.

7. Further submission is that according to the case set up, the victim/opposite party no.2, who is aged about 35 years, ought to have been sustained some injury at the time of alleged incident, but medical opinion indicates that no injury was found on the body of victim/opposite party no.2, after due medical examination. 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.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

9. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

10. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the fact(s) that (i) victim/opposite party no.2 is major, i.e. about 35 years, (ii) after due medical examination, no injury was found on the body of victim/opposite party no.2, (iii) the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 05.04.2025 and (iv) 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.

11. Order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No.846 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.53 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 127(2), 76, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baba Bazar, District- Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Ankur 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.

13. 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

14. 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 :- 5.8.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench