Dharampal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard, Shri Iqbal Ahmad, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record

2. On 01.09.2025 this Court had passed the following order: "Affidavit of service filed in the Court today is taken on record. Cased called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to oppose the instant bail appeal. However, Office Report dated

29.08.2025 and letter of C.J.M., Balrampur dated 25.08.2025 as well as Annexure No. CA-2 and CA-1 to the counter affidavits of State dated 16.07.2025 and 01.09.2025 5indicate that service of notice upon private opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 is sufficient. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned today. List/put up this case on 11.09.2025. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on account of non-appearance of the private opposite parties and it would be heard and decided on merits. ."

3. Today when the case is taken up, neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that the opposite party No.2 is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

5. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Balrampur (Bail Application No. 640 of 2025), whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No. 72/2025 was rejected. 2 CRLA No. 1989 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, a contention supported by several key factual and evidentiary points. Crucially, the victim's age is a matter of record, with the Investigating Officer, based on her school certificate, finding her to be above 18 years at the time of the incident. Consequently, sections under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act were found inapplicable and subsequently dropped. Furthermore, the defense stresses the material contradiction between the initial First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent statement made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC). The FIR contained no allegation of rape, alleging only molestation and assault. The gravest allegation of rape was introduced only in the later statement, which the defense alleges was an afterthought and influenced by the family to strengthen a case motivated by political rivalry.

7. Counsel for the appellant strenuously argues that the impugned order has failed to appreciate these fundamental contradictions and the evidence on record, which is overwhelmingly exculpatory in nature. The medical report does not indicate any signs of recent sexual assault or rape. The doctor's opinion noted only three external injuries and, critically, opined that the hymen was "torn and healed old," directly negating the allegation of sexual assault/rape. The appellant has a clean record, possessing no prior criminal history, and has been continuously languishing in judicial custody since May 13, 2025. Given the victim's undisputed age, the exculpatory medical evidence, the stark contradiction between the initial and later statements, and the appellant's lack of criminal antecedents, the material on record does not support the charges leveled against him.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur in First Bail Application No. 640/2025 (Dharampal Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 72/2025, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Pachpedwa, District Balrampur deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer, submitting that the appellant committed a serious offence, including an allegation of rape, against a member of the Scheduled Caste community. They asserted that the Special Judge rightly found the crime to be of a heinous criminal nature, warranting dismissal of the appeal. However, the A.G.A. was unable to dispute the factual submissions regarding the victim's age being above 18 years, the non-corroboration of rape by the medical report, and the contradiction in the initial FIR.

10. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of counsel for the appellant and 3 CRLA No. 1989 of 2025 learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the F.I.R. primarily alleged molestation and assault, with the allegation of rape being introduced later in the statement under Section 183 BNSS. Crucially, the Investigating Officer established the victim's age as over 18 years at the time of the incident, leading to the dropping of the POCSO Act sections. The Medical Legal Examination found three external injuries, but noted that the hymen was 'torn and healed old' , which does not corroborate the allegation of rape. Considering that the appellant has been in jail since 13.05.2025 and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, and thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

09.06.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur in First Bail Application No. 640/2025 (Dharampal Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 72/2025, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Pachpedwa, District Balrampur is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Dharampal 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 relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions- (1) 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.PC.

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 4 CRLA No. 1989 of 2025 the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 7, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard, Shri Iqbal Ahmad, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record

2. On 01.09.2025 this Court had passed the following order: "Affidavit of service filed in the Court today is taken on record. Cased called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to oppose the instant bail appeal. However, Office Report dated

29.08.2025 and letter of C.J.M., Balrampur dated 25.08.2025 as well as Annexure No. CA-2 and CA-1 to the counter affidavits of State dated 16.07.2025 and 01.09.2025 5indicate that service of notice upon private opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 is sufficient. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned today. List/put up this case on 11.09.2025. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on account of non-appearance of the private opposite parties and it would be heard and decided on merits. ."

3. Today when the case is taken up, neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that the opposite party No.2 is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

5. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Balrampur (Bail Application No. 640 of 2025), whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No. 72/2025 was rejected. 2 CRLA No. 1989 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, a contention supported by several key factual and evidentiary points. Crucially, the victim's age is a matter of record, with the Investigating Officer, based on her school certificate, finding her to be above 18 years at the time of the incident. Consequently, sections under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act were found inapplicable and subsequently dropped. Furthermore, the defense stresses the material contradiction between the initial First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent statement made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC). The FIR contained no allegation of rape, alleging only molestation and assault. The gravest allegation of rape was introduced only in the later statement, which the defense alleges was an afterthought and influenced by the family to strengthen a case motivated by political rivalry.

7. Counsel for the appellant strenuously argues that the impugned order has failed to appreciate these fundamental contradictions and the evidence on record, which is overwhelmingly exculpatory in nature. The medical report does not indicate any signs of recent sexual assault or rape. The doctor's opinion noted only three external injuries and, critically, opined that the hymen was "torn and healed old," directly negating the allegation of sexual assault/rape. The appellant has a clean record, possessing no prior criminal history, and has been continuously languishing in judicial custody since May 13, 2025. Given the victim's undisputed age, the exculpatory medical evidence, the stark contradiction between the initial and later statements, and the appellant's lack of criminal antecedents, the material on record does not support the charges leveled against him.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur in First Bail Application No. 640/2025 (Dharampal Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 72/2025, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Pachpedwa, District Balrampur deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer, submitting that the appellant committed a serious offence, including an allegation of rape, against a member of the Scheduled Caste community. They asserted that the Special Judge rightly found the crime to be of a heinous criminal nature, warranting dismissal of the appeal. However, the A.G.A. was unable to dispute the factual submissions regarding the victim's age being above 18 years, the non-corroboration of rape by the medical report, and the contradiction in the initial FIR.

10. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of counsel for the appellant and 3 CRLA No. 1989 of 2025 learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the F.I.R. primarily alleged molestation and assault, with the allegation of rape being introduced later in the statement under Section 183 BNSS. Crucially, the Investigating Officer established the victim's age as over 18 years at the time of the incident, leading to the dropping of the POCSO Act sections. The Medical Legal Examination found three external injuries, but noted that the hymen was 'torn and healed old' , which does not corroborate the allegation of rape. Considering that the appellant has been in jail since 13.05.2025 and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, and thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

09.06.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur in First Bail Application No. 640/2025 (Dharampal Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 72/2025, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Pachpedwa, District Balrampur is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Dharampal 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 relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions- (1) 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.PC.

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 4 CRLA No. 1989 of 2025 the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 7, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench