Sudheer Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2025) Heard, Shri Amitesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Arvind Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State 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 30.07.2025 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, Under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Phardhan, District-Lakhimpur Kheri, was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Sudheer Kumar Yadav, has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 209 of 2025 and is currently languishing in jail since 04.07.2025 without any fault. The appellant is a student and studies in Intermediate. The genesis of the controversy is a relationship that began four years ago on Instagram between the appellant and the complainant, who is a major (27 years old, 8th grade educated) and a married/widow lady with a child aged about 8 years. The appellant, on the other hand, is only 19 years old, resulting in a major age difference. The appellant neither enticed the prosecutrix nor established any relationship under coercion, as the complainant willingly made a relationship with the appellant, travelled with him to Delhi, and stayed in a hotel. Furthermore, the complainant, in her statement under Section 183 BNS, accepted that she made a physical relationship with the appellant. The Trial Court has committed a manifest error of facts and law in summarily rejecting the bail application without appreciating this critical evidence. 2 CRLA No. 2521 of 2025 He further submits that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated, and the F.I.R. was lodged only after the appellant, due to family pressure and on refusal of marriage to the complainant. Significantly, the Medico-Legal Examination Report (Annexure No. 4) is highly favourable to the appellant, clearly stating, "No signs of the use of force; no recent forceful penetration injury found." The complainant has also been making money demands from the appellant, and when the appellant was unable to give money, the F.I.R. was lodged which is a clear case of honey trap. Furthermore, at the time of the alleged incident in 2021, the appellant was minor (about 15 years old), suggesting the complainant i.e. the respondent no.2, sexually harassed the appellant, as per Section 2[d] of POCSO Act. The appellant has no criminal history, the Charge Sheet has not yet been submitted, and the investigation is still running. He further submits that the appellant is a student and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, he deserves 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 30.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in First Bail Application No.1 of 2025, Sudheer Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, under Section 69 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Phardhan, 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, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant committed a serious offence, including an allegation of a sexual relationship, against a member of the Scheduled Caste community. They asserted that the Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, rightly found the crime to be of a heinous criminal nature, warranting dismissal of the appeal. However, the A.G.A. was unable to successfully dispute the factual submissions regarding the complainant's age being 27-30 years old and a married/widow lady (major), the relationship continuing over four years, the complainant's own statements confirming a physical relationship, and the Medico- Legal Examination Report showing 'No signs of the use of force; no recent forceful penetration injury found', which significantly weaken the prosecution's case and the allegation of rape. 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 and learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the F.I.R. dated 31.05.2025 and the victim's subsequent statements confirm a relationship that began on Instagram and continued for about four years, involving the Complainant willingly travelling with the Appellant and making a physical relationship. The Complainant is a major (27-30 3 CRLA No. 2521 of 2025 years old and a married/widow lady), whereas the Appellant is a 19-year-old student. Crucially, the Medico-Legal Examination Report (Annexure No. 4) is a key factor, as it shows 'No signs of the use of force; no recent forceful penetration injury found'. This severely weakens the allegation of sexual assault or coercion. It is also noted that the appellant has been in jail since 04.07.2025 and has no criminal history. Considering that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, particularly the voluntary nature of the relationship and the medical evidence, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

30.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in First Bail Application No. 1 of 2025; Sudheer Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Phardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Sudheer Kumar Yadav, 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 tria. (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 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law 4 CRLA No. 2521 of 2025 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 9, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2025) Heard, Shri Amitesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Arvind Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State 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 30.07.2025 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, Under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Phardhan, District-Lakhimpur Kheri, was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Sudheer Kumar Yadav, has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 209 of 2025 and is currently languishing in jail since 04.07.2025 without any fault. The appellant is a student and studies in Intermediate. The genesis of the controversy is a relationship that began four years ago on Instagram between the appellant and the complainant, who is a major (27 years old, 8th grade educated) and a married/widow lady with a child aged about 8 years. The appellant, on the other hand, is only 19 years old, resulting in a major age difference. The appellant neither enticed the prosecutrix nor established any relationship under coercion, as the complainant willingly made a relationship with the appellant, travelled with him to Delhi, and stayed in a hotel. Furthermore, the complainant, in her statement under Section 183 BNS, accepted that she made a physical relationship with the appellant. The Trial Court has committed a manifest error of facts and law in summarily rejecting the bail application without appreciating this critical evidence. 2 CRLA No. 2521 of 2025 He further submits that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated, and the F.I.R. was lodged only after the appellant, due to family pressure and on refusal of marriage to the complainant. Significantly, the Medico-Legal Examination Report (Annexure No. 4) is highly favourable to the appellant, clearly stating, "No signs of the use of force; no recent forceful penetration injury found." The complainant has also been making money demands from the appellant, and when the appellant was unable to give money, the F.I.R. was lodged which is a clear case of honey trap. Furthermore, at the time of the alleged incident in 2021, the appellant was minor (about 15 years old), suggesting the complainant i.e. the respondent no.2, sexually harassed the appellant, as per Section 2[d] of POCSO Act. The appellant has no criminal history, the Charge Sheet has not yet been submitted, and the investigation is still running. He further submits that the appellant is a student and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, he deserves 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 30.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in First Bail Application No.1 of 2025, Sudheer Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, under Section 69 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Phardhan, 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, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant committed a serious offence, including an allegation of a sexual relationship, against a member of the Scheduled Caste community. They asserted that the Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, rightly found the crime to be of a heinous criminal nature, warranting dismissal of the appeal. However, the A.G.A. was unable to successfully dispute the factual submissions regarding the complainant's age being 27-30 years old and a married/widow lady (major), the relationship continuing over four years, the complainant's own statements confirming a physical relationship, and the Medico- Legal Examination Report showing 'No signs of the use of force; no recent forceful penetration injury found', which significantly weaken the prosecution's case and the allegation of rape. 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 and learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the F.I.R. dated 31.05.2025 and the victim's subsequent statements confirm a relationship that began on Instagram and continued for about four years, involving the Complainant willingly travelling with the Appellant and making a physical relationship. The Complainant is a major (27-30 3 CRLA No. 2521 of 2025 years old and a married/widow lady), whereas the Appellant is a 19-year-old student. Crucially, the Medico-Legal Examination Report (Annexure No. 4) is a key factor, as it shows 'No signs of the use of force; no recent forceful penetration injury found'. This severely weakens the allegation of sexual assault or coercion. It is also noted that the appellant has been in jail since 04.07.2025 and has no criminal history. Considering that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, particularly the voluntary nature of the relationship and the medical evidence, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

30.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in First Bail Application No. 1 of 2025; Sudheer Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Phardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Sudheer Kumar Yadav, 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 tria. (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 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law 4 CRLA No. 2521 of 2025 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 9, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench