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

: : G.A., Ashok Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed application for amendment in array of parties in compliance of order dated 04.08.2025 passed by this Court.

2. The amendment application is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to amend the necessary amendment as indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for amendment during the course of the day.

4. Vide order dated 04.08.2025, it was directed to issue notice to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 with a further direction that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 be informed by the S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned.

5. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has informed that opposite party no. 3 has been duly informed by the concerned S.H.O. on 05.08.2025, and a copy of the notice has been annexed as C.A.-9 to the counter affidavit filed by the State, but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party 3 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, it appears that she is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

8. 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 24.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2048/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 64(2) k, 332 (a) BNS read with Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police 2 CRLA No. 2353 of 2025 Station-Nawabganj, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged incident is said to happen on 31.01.2025 while F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of 25 days on

25.02.2025, no such explanation has been offered in respect of delay of lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that due to rivalry in the village, he was planned in this false case. He next submits that whose names have mentioned as eye-witness in the F.I.R., against them the appellant had filed a criminal case before the court concerned, prior to the lodging of the F.I.R.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the prosecutrix in her statement did not disclose the name of the appellant. He next submits that as per medical report, no external or internal injury was found.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the dispute was with regard to stray animals and an application under Section 175(3) was moved by the appellant before the A.C.J.M. concerned, wherein the concerned Police Station has submitted report that to maintain law and order, both the parties were called to the concerned police station on 31.01.2025, where they were challened under Section 126/135 BNSS and it was also mentioned therein that there was dispute with regard to stray animals between the parties, not for this incidence. He next submits that age of the prosecutrix is 45 year while the age of the appellant is 59 years.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para-15 of the affidavit filed in support of the present appeal. It has been argued that the appellant is in jail since 28.02.2025 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 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 24.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2048/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 64(2) k, 332 (a) BNS read with Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District Pratapgarh deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 3 CRLA No. 2353 of 2025

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. when the victim was sleeping on the frightful night, the appellant came there and committed rape on her and she was witnessed by Herpal whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. He next submits that the victim is mentally disabled, who cannot speak, but in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she told the name of appellant as Chhotawa. The appellant has criminal history. 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 considering the facts and circumstance of the case and on the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that the F.I.R. of the instant case has been lodged after 25 days and no explanation is offered therein; Herpal and Adiya Saroj are said to be witness the incident while Herpal and others had been made accused by the appellant in one criminal case, as it reveal from the copy of the application filed under Section 156 (3) prior to this incident; as the prosecutrix is not able to understand, therefore, on the indication and repeatedly made query, she named Chhotawa in her statement u/s 180 B.N.S.S., but in the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she did not disclose the name of the appellant; as per medical report, no external or internal injury was found; on the application under Section 175(3) moved by the appellant before the A.C.J.M. concerned, wherein the concerned Police Station has submitted report that to maintain law and order, both the parties were called to the concerned police station on 31.01.2025, where they were challened under Section 126/135 BNSS and the concerned police station has also reported that there was dispute with regard to stray animals between the parties, as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 28.02.2025 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

24.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2048/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 64(2) k, 332 (a) BNS read with Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

18. Let the appellant-Chotelal Patel be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount 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 4 CRLA No. 2353 of 2025 (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 them 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 17, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: : G.A., Ashok Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed application for amendment in array of parties in compliance of order dated 04.08.2025 passed by this Court.

2. The amendment application is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to amend the necessary amendment as indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for amendment during the course of the day.

4. Vide order dated 04.08.2025, it was directed to issue notice to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 with a further direction that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 be informed by the S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned.

5. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has informed that opposite party no. 3 has been duly informed by the concerned S.H.O. on 05.08.2025, and a copy of the notice has been annexed as C.A.-9 to the counter affidavit filed by the State, but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party 3 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, it appears that she is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

8. 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 24.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2048/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 64(2) k, 332 (a) BNS read with Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police 2 CRLA No. 2353 of 2025 Station-Nawabganj, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged incident is said to happen on 31.01.2025 while F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of 25 days on

25.02.2025, no such explanation has been offered in respect of delay of lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that due to rivalry in the village, he was planned in this false case. He next submits that whose names have mentioned as eye-witness in the F.I.R., against them the appellant had filed a criminal case before the court concerned, prior to the lodging of the F.I.R.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the prosecutrix in her statement did not disclose the name of the appellant. He next submits that as per medical report, no external or internal injury was found.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the dispute was with regard to stray animals and an application under Section 175(3) was moved by the appellant before the A.C.J.M. concerned, wherein the concerned Police Station has submitted report that to maintain law and order, both the parties were called to the concerned police station on 31.01.2025, where they were challened under Section 126/135 BNSS and it was also mentioned therein that there was dispute with regard to stray animals between the parties, not for this incidence. He next submits that age of the prosecutrix is 45 year while the age of the appellant is 59 years.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para-15 of the affidavit filed in support of the present appeal. It has been argued that the appellant is in jail since 28.02.2025 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 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 24.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2048/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 64(2) k, 332 (a) BNS read with Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District Pratapgarh deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 3 CRLA No. 2353 of 2025

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. when the victim was sleeping on the frightful night, the appellant came there and committed rape on her and she was witnessed by Herpal whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. He next submits that the victim is mentally disabled, who cannot speak, but in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she told the name of appellant as Chhotawa. The appellant has criminal history. 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 considering the facts and circumstance of the case and on the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that the F.I.R. of the instant case has been lodged after 25 days and no explanation is offered therein; Herpal and Adiya Saroj are said to be witness the incident while Herpal and others had been made accused by the appellant in one criminal case, as it reveal from the copy of the application filed under Section 156 (3) prior to this incident; as the prosecutrix is not able to understand, therefore, on the indication and repeatedly made query, she named Chhotawa in her statement u/s 180 B.N.S.S., but in the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she did not disclose the name of the appellant; as per medical report, no external or internal injury was found; on the application under Section 175(3) moved by the appellant before the A.C.J.M. concerned, wherein the concerned Police Station has submitted report that to maintain law and order, both the parties were called to the concerned police station on 31.01.2025, where they were challened under Section 126/135 BNSS and the concerned police station has also reported that there was dispute with regard to stray animals between the parties, as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 28.02.2025 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

24.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2048/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 64(2) k, 332 (a) BNS read with Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

18. Let the appellant-Chotelal Patel be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount 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 4 CRLA No. 2353 of 2025 (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 them 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 17, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench