Abdul Mannan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. On 17.09.2025 this Court had passed the following order: “Perusal of the order-sheet indicates that service of notice upon the opposite party No.2 is sufficient and name of Shri Kirti Raj Singh, Advocate is printed in the cause list on behalf of the opposite party No.2. However, when the case is taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the appeal. However, learned A.G.A. is present for the State. In view of the above, the case is adjourned today. List this case in the 08.10.2025. It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in the case, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the opposite party No.2 and the matter would be heard and decided on merits and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call.”

3. Today when the case is taken up, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is not present.

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. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge 2 CRLA No. 2025 of 2025 S.C./S.T./Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Case Crime No. 172/2025, under Sections 319(2), 316(2), 64, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per F.I.R. the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste Dhanuk community and Hindu religion. She was married to Sudip Mandal, resident of Bakhtawarpur, Delhi. Meanwhile, Abdul Mannan became close to her through Facebook and he also visited the complainant in Delhi several times. When the husband of the complainant came to know, he refused to keep the her. Abdul Mannan by creating a fake Instagram ID in the name of Mohit Rai trapped her in his love and called her from Delhi to Unnao by luring her with a job. After coming to Unnao, the complainant was kept for a day on

08.12.2024 at Karo Krus Hotel Bypass Unnao and raped against her wishes. On 09.12.2024, the complainant came to know his real name, who belongs to the Muslim community. He rented a room and continued to do bad things. The complainant has been threatened that if she complains against him, then he will kill her. He has made every effort to kill the complainant and in the assault, the complainant has suffered a serious injury in her eye. He has forcibly taken possession of all the jewellery worth fourteen lakh rupees and has fled with two lakh rupees in cash.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case by the complainant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the prosecution version the alleged incident has taken place on 19.02.2025 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 03.03.2025 without explaining the delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits complainant/victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. has reiterated the version of the F.I.R.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits 3 CRLA No. 2025 of 2025 complainant/victim in her statement recorded under Sections 183 B.N.S.S. had admitted this fact the the appellant came to her house in absence of her husband and the victim also visited District Jail Unnao to meet with the appellant many times, thus it appears that the parties appears to be consenting parties. The complainant/victim is a married lady aged about 38 years having two children, thus she is major and she knew the consequences very well.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the victim is herself a fraud woman and she has also created her Instagram ID in the name of Simran and traps people by uploading reels and extorts money by threatening in false cases.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that medication examination of the victim has been conducted on 04.03.2025 at Uma Shankar Dixit Dixtrict (Male) Hospital, Unnao in which the doctor has given opinion that the injuries are simple in nature and are of 13-14 days old. After that the victim was again examined in Uma Shankar Dixit District (Female) Hospital Unnao on 04.03.2025 at 2.35 P.M. to 3.05 P.M. in which the doctor has opined that no sign of injury seen at the time of examination.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2025, 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.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T./Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Case Crime No. 172/2025, under Sections 319(2), 316(2), 64, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by 4 CRLA No. 2025 of 2025 submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

16. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and the fact that the informant/victim is a married lady aged about 38 years having two children, thus she is major and she knew the consequences very well and it also appears from the very inception that there was consensual physical relationship between both of them as well as that the appellant is in jail since 19.05.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T./Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Case Crime No. 172/2025, under Sections 319(2), 316(2), 64, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao is hereby set aside.

18. Let the appellant- Abdul Mannan 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 5 prosecution witness(s). CRLA No. 2025 of 2025 (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.

19. 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

20. 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. October 8, 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 and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. On 17.09.2025 this Court had passed the following order: “Perusal of the order-sheet indicates that service of notice upon the opposite party No.2 is sufficient and name of Shri Kirti Raj Singh, Advocate is printed in the cause list on behalf of the opposite party No.2. However, when the case is taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the appeal. However, learned A.G.A. is present for the State. In view of the above, the case is adjourned today. List this case in the 08.10.2025. It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in the case, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the opposite party No.2 and the matter would be heard and decided on merits and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call.”

3. Today when the case is taken up, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is not present.

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. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge 2 CRLA No. 2025 of 2025 S.C./S.T./Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Case Crime No. 172/2025, under Sections 319(2), 316(2), 64, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per F.I.R. the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste Dhanuk community and Hindu religion. She was married to Sudip Mandal, resident of Bakhtawarpur, Delhi. Meanwhile, Abdul Mannan became close to her through Facebook and he also visited the complainant in Delhi several times. When the husband of the complainant came to know, he refused to keep the her. Abdul Mannan by creating a fake Instagram ID in the name of Mohit Rai trapped her in his love and called her from Delhi to Unnao by luring her with a job. After coming to Unnao, the complainant was kept for a day on

08.12.2024 at Karo Krus Hotel Bypass Unnao and raped against her wishes. On 09.12.2024, the complainant came to know his real name, who belongs to the Muslim community. He rented a room and continued to do bad things. The complainant has been threatened that if she complains against him, then he will kill her. He has made every effort to kill the complainant and in the assault, the complainant has suffered a serious injury in her eye. He has forcibly taken possession of all the jewellery worth fourteen lakh rupees and has fled with two lakh rupees in cash.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case by the complainant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the prosecution version the alleged incident has taken place on 19.02.2025 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 03.03.2025 without explaining the delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits complainant/victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. has reiterated the version of the F.I.R.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits 3 CRLA No. 2025 of 2025 complainant/victim in her statement recorded under Sections 183 B.N.S.S. had admitted this fact the the appellant came to her house in absence of her husband and the victim also visited District Jail Unnao to meet with the appellant many times, thus it appears that the parties appears to be consenting parties. The complainant/victim is a married lady aged about 38 years having two children, thus she is major and she knew the consequences very well.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the victim is herself a fraud woman and she has also created her Instagram ID in the name of Simran and traps people by uploading reels and extorts money by threatening in false cases.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that medication examination of the victim has been conducted on 04.03.2025 at Uma Shankar Dixit Dixtrict (Male) Hospital, Unnao in which the doctor has given opinion that the injuries are simple in nature and are of 13-14 days old. After that the victim was again examined in Uma Shankar Dixit District (Female) Hospital Unnao on 04.03.2025 at 2.35 P.M. to 3.05 P.M. in which the doctor has opined that no sign of injury seen at the time of examination.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2025, 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.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T./Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Case Crime No. 172/2025, under Sections 319(2), 316(2), 64, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by 4 CRLA No. 2025 of 2025 submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

16. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and the fact that the informant/victim is a married lady aged about 38 years having two children, thus she is major and she knew the consequences very well and it also appears from the very inception that there was consensual physical relationship between both of them as well as that the appellant is in jail since 19.05.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T./Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Case Crime No. 172/2025, under Sections 319(2), 316(2), 64, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao is hereby set aside.

18. Let the appellant- Abdul Mannan 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 5 prosecution witness(s). CRLA No. 2025 of 2025 (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.

19. 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

20. 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. October 8, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench