High Court · 2025

1. VAkalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 by Shri Jayant Pratap Singh, Advocate is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Madhusudan Dutt Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Jayant Pratap Singh, 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 17.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No.69 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0027/2025, under Sections- 137(2), 87 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Atariya, District - Sitapur.

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. It is further submitted that according to the prosecution story, some unknown persons enticed away the minor daughter, aged about 16 years, of the informant/opposite party No.2, that is why the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. As per medical opinion the victim at the relevant point of time was aged about 17 years and the prosecution is placing reliance upon the school leaving certificate of Class 8.

5. It is also stated that the date of birth indicated in the School Leaving Certificate i.e. 09.08.2008 is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 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 and at this stage the benefit of above pronouncements related to determination of age may be extended in favour of the appellant.

6. It is next submitted that the victim denied for complete medical examination on her own as would appear from page 52 of the paper-book. Further submission is that according to the statement of the victim recorded during investigation under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023 no case is made out against the appellant for the reason that according to these statements the victim had herself left the parental home and went Lucknow along with the appellant as she was in affair with the appellant and these statements further indicate that physical relations were not established by the appellant with the victim and on coming to know about the F.I.R. being lodged, the victim on her own returned back to her parental house. The statements so recorded also indicate that the victim, who appears to be major, on her own indicated her age as 18 years. In these circumstances, the appellant, who has no criminal history and languishing in jail since 09.02.2025 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.

7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

8. 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.

9. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statements of victim, referred, and 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.

10. Order dated 17.03.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No.69 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0027/2025, under Sections 137 (2), 87 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Atariya, District - Sitapur is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant - Gulshan 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 :- 16.7.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. VAkalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 by Shri Jayant Pratap Singh, Advocate is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Madhusudan Dutt Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Jayant Pratap Singh, 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 17.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No.69 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0027/2025, under Sections- 137(2), 87 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Atariya, District - Sitapur.

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. It is further submitted that according to the prosecution story, some unknown persons enticed away the minor daughter, aged about 16 years, of the informant/opposite party No.2, that is why the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. As per medical opinion the victim at the relevant point of time was aged about 17 years and the prosecution is placing reliance upon the school leaving certificate of Class 8.

5. It is also stated that the date of birth indicated in the School Leaving Certificate i.e. 09.08.2008 is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 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 and at this stage the benefit of above pronouncements related to determination of age may be extended in favour of the appellant.

6. It is next submitted that the victim denied for complete medical examination on her own as would appear from page 52 of the paper-book. Further submission is that according to the statement of the victim recorded during investigation under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023 no case is made out against the appellant for the reason that according to these statements the victim had herself left the parental home and went Lucknow along with the appellant as she was in affair with the appellant and these statements further indicate that physical relations were not established by the appellant with the victim and on coming to know about the F.I.R. being lodged, the victim on her own returned back to her parental house. The statements so recorded also indicate that the victim, who appears to be major, on her own indicated her age as 18 years. In these circumstances, the appellant, who has no criminal history and languishing in jail since 09.02.2025 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.

7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

8. 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.

9. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statements of victim, referred, and 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.

10. Order dated 17.03.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No.69 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0027/2025, under Sections 137 (2), 87 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Atariya, District - Sitapur is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant - Gulshan 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 :- 16.7.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench