State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another vs Vinay Kumar

: Abhishek Srivastava, Anurudh Kumar Singh, Vinay Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Deo Raj Singh, Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.respondent no.2 is taken on record. (I.A. No.02 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 01.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant (Mohd. Arif) in Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, Under Section 323, 328, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Sampurnanagar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, was rejected. The Applicant/Accused, Mohd. Arif, has filed a Criminal Appeal against the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, rejecting his bail application. He has been in jail since 24.05.2025 in connection with Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Sections 323,328,376,506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The genesis of the controversy is the alleged commission of rape and physical exploitation under the threat of blackmail and religious conversion pressure. The victim is stated to be, an adult married lady of 30 years, who has a son. The applicant asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a "totally false and fabricated" story for the purpose of extorting money, arguing that the whole incident is an outcome of a failed business relationship. The defence highlights that 2 CRLA No. 2213 of 2025 the complainant has a history of filing similar false cases (against Ajay Pratap Singh Chauhan) which were previously dismissed and that the trial court rejected bail despite the business partnership evidence. The defence explicitly challenges the applicability of the SC/ST Act sections, arguing that the offence is not made out. The applicant further contends that the prosecution story is false because the victim, in her Medical Examination on 09.06.2025, refused all internal and external examination. The defence also points out that the lower court rejected the bail application in a "very routine manner." The applicant belongs to a poor family, is working on daily wages, has no criminal history, and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, deserving to be enlarged on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No.242 of 2025, Mohd. Arif Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Section 323,328,376,506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station Sampurnanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant would vehemently oppose the bail application of the accused, Mohd. Arif, in connection with Case Crime No. 89 of 2025. The application challenges the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offense alleged against the victim, who is a 30-year- old married lady, and is currently four months pregnant as a result of the alleged act. The FIR was lodged under Sections 376 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and the Conversion Act, among others, for the alleged rape, blackmail, and physical exploitation of the victim. The documents confirm the accused has been languishing in jail since 24.05.2025. The prosecution is bound by the fact that the victim refused P/V and Speculum examination. The Special Judge, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments regarding the history of the complainant filing similar false cases for extortion and the existence of a prior business relationship, rejected the bail application, and that order is being challenged via this appeal. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court notes that the underlying criminal case is Crime Case No. 89 of 2025 at P.S. Sampurnanagar, Lakhimpur Kheri, involving the Applicant/Accused, Mohd. Arif , who has been in jail since 24.05.2025 over the alleged commission of rape and physical exploitation of the victim, an adult married lady of 30 years. 3 CRLA No. 2213 of 2025 The Applicant/Accused's defense contends the FIR story is "totally false and fabricated," asserting the whole case is an attempt to extort money following a failed business relationship (as evident from the Partnership Deed and Lease Agreement). The defense highlights that the victim has a history of filing similar cases against Ajay Pratap Singh Chauhan, which were previously dismissed. Crucially, the defense highlights that the Medico-Legal Report shows no sign of injury on the body and his lack of criminal history, arguing that the trial court failed to properly appreciate this material evidence, and therefore, its order passed on 01.07.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

01.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 242 of 2025; Mohd. Arif Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Section 323,328,376,506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Sampurnanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri is prayed to be set aside. Let the appellant- Mohd. Arif, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Section 323, 328, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, 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. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as 4 CRLA No. 2213 of 2025 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. 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 15, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Abhishek Srivastava, Anurudh Kumar Singh, Vinay Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Deo Raj Singh, Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.respondent no.2 is taken on record. (I.A. No.02 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 01.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant (Mohd. Arif) in Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, Under Section 323, 328, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Sampurnanagar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, was rejected. The Applicant/Accused, Mohd. Arif, has filed a Criminal Appeal against the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, rejecting his bail application. He has been in jail since 24.05.2025 in connection with Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Sections 323,328,376,506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The genesis of the controversy is the alleged commission of rape and physical exploitation under the threat of blackmail and religious conversion pressure. The victim is stated to be, an adult married lady of 30 years, who has a son. The applicant asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a "totally false and fabricated" story for the purpose of extorting money, arguing that the whole incident is an outcome of a failed business relationship. The defence highlights that 2 CRLA No. 2213 of 2025 the complainant has a history of filing similar false cases (against Ajay Pratap Singh Chauhan) which were previously dismissed and that the trial court rejected bail despite the business partnership evidence. The defence explicitly challenges the applicability of the SC/ST Act sections, arguing that the offence is not made out. The applicant further contends that the prosecution story is false because the victim, in her Medical Examination on 09.06.2025, refused all internal and external examination. The defence also points out that the lower court rejected the bail application in a "very routine manner." The applicant belongs to a poor family, is working on daily wages, has no criminal history, and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, deserving to be enlarged on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No.242 of 2025, Mohd. Arif Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Section 323,328,376,506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station Sampurnanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant would vehemently oppose the bail application of the accused, Mohd. Arif, in connection with Case Crime No. 89 of 2025. The application challenges the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offense alleged against the victim, who is a 30-year- old married lady, and is currently four months pregnant as a result of the alleged act. The FIR was lodged under Sections 376 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and the Conversion Act, among others, for the alleged rape, blackmail, and physical exploitation of the victim. The documents confirm the accused has been languishing in jail since 24.05.2025. The prosecution is bound by the fact that the victim refused P/V and Speculum examination. The Special Judge, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments regarding the history of the complainant filing similar false cases for extortion and the existence of a prior business relationship, rejected the bail application, and that order is being challenged via this appeal. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court notes that the underlying criminal case is Crime Case No. 89 of 2025 at P.S. Sampurnanagar, Lakhimpur Kheri, involving the Applicant/Accused, Mohd. Arif , who has been in jail since 24.05.2025 over the alleged commission of rape and physical exploitation of the victim, an adult married lady of 30 years. 3 CRLA No. 2213 of 2025 The Applicant/Accused's defense contends the FIR story is "totally false and fabricated," asserting the whole case is an attempt to extort money following a failed business relationship (as evident from the Partnership Deed and Lease Agreement). The defense highlights that the victim has a history of filing similar cases against Ajay Pratap Singh Chauhan, which were previously dismissed. Crucially, the defense highlights that the Medico-Legal Report shows no sign of injury on the body and his lack of criminal history, arguing that the trial court failed to properly appreciate this material evidence, and therefore, its order passed on 01.07.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

01.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 242 of 2025; Mohd. Arif Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Section 323,328,376,506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Sampurnanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri is prayed to be set aside. Let the appellant- Mohd. Arif, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Section 323, 328, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3,5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, 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. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as 4 CRLA No. 2213 of 2025 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. 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 15, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench