State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko And Another vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

2. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

4. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 128 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2025 under Sections 87/137(2) BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Ataria, District-Sitapur.

5. It is stated that according to the FIR lodged on 17.03.2025 at P.S.-Ataria, District-Sitapur, which is the cause of pending criminal proceedings, the appellant, aged about 21 years, enticed away the 16 years old daughter (victim) of the informant.

6. Further stated that the story indicated in the FIR aforesaid which was lodged under Sections 87/137(2) BNS 2023 is false and concocted as the victim at the time of alleged incident was about 19 years old and she left her parental house on her own volition and accompanied the appellant to Sitapur for the purposes of solemnizing the marriage with him. Further, on coming to know about lodging of FIR, she return to her parental house. It is also 2 CRLA No. 1938 of 2025 stated that there is no medical evidence to support the story of the prosecution.

7. Further stated that a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS 2023 indicates that she stated that on attaining the age of majority she would solemnize the marriage with the appellant.

8. It is also stated that the age on which prosecution is placing reliance i.e. 16 years is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties concerned before the trial Court which is required in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act and accordingly at this stage of bail, benefit of various pronouncement on the issue of determination of age, including the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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, is liable to be extended in favour of appellant.

9. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed and appellant, who is in incarceration since 20.03.2025, is entitiled to be released on bail.

10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the judgment(s) on the issue of determination of age, statement(s) of victim reocrded in terms of Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, 2023 as also 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 3 CRLA No. 1938 of 2025 accordingly, allowed.

13. The impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 128 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2025 under Sections 87/137(2) BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ataria, District-Sitapur, is hereby set aside.

14. Let appellant-Farid be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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.

15. 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. September 23, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

2. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

4. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 128 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2025 under Sections 87/137(2) BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Ataria, District-Sitapur.

5. It is stated that according to the FIR lodged on 17.03.2025 at P.S.-Ataria, District-Sitapur, which is the cause of pending criminal proceedings, the appellant, aged about 21 years, enticed away the 16 years old daughter (victim) of the informant.

6. Further stated that the story indicated in the FIR aforesaid which was lodged under Sections 87/137(2) BNS 2023 is false and concocted as the victim at the time of alleged incident was about 19 years old and she left her parental house on her own volition and accompanied the appellant to Sitapur for the purposes of solemnizing the marriage with him. Further, on coming to know about lodging of FIR, she return to her parental house. It is also 2 CRLA No. 1938 of 2025 stated that there is no medical evidence to support the story of the prosecution.

7. Further stated that a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS 2023 indicates that she stated that on attaining the age of majority she would solemnize the marriage with the appellant.

8. It is also stated that the age on which prosecution is placing reliance i.e. 16 years is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties concerned before the trial Court which is required in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act and accordingly at this stage of bail, benefit of various pronouncement on the issue of determination of age, including the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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, is liable to be extended in favour of appellant.

9. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed and appellant, who is in incarceration since 20.03.2025, is entitiled to be released on bail.

10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the judgment(s) on the issue of determination of age, statement(s) of victim reocrded in terms of Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, 2023 as also 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 3 CRLA No. 1938 of 2025 accordingly, allowed.

13. The impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 128 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2025 under Sections 87/137(2) BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ataria, District-Sitapur, is hereby set aside.

14. Let appellant-Farid be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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.

15. 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. September 23, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench