Mo. Asfak State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko v. Counsel for

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (I.A. No.01 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal, numbered 2679 of 2025, has been preferred under Section 14- A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ayodhya (Faizabad), whereby the bail application of the appellant (Mohd. Ashfak) in Case Crime No. 195 of 2025, Under Section 137(2), 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Raunahi, District-Ayodhya, was rejected. The Applicant/Accused, Mohd. Ashfak, has filed a Criminal Appeal against the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya, rejecting his bail application. He has been in jail since 06.06.2025 (not 08.05.2025) in connection with Case Crime No. 195 of 2025 (not 208 of 2025) under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS, and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. The genesis of the controversy is the alleged abduction of the victim, who is stated to be a minor of 17 years (not a married lady with three children). The applicant asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a "totally false and fabricated" story, arguing that the whole incident occurred in consent with the victim/respondent. The defence highlights that the victim's statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. claimed that the accused "Ashfak lured her and she wants to marry him" and that the lower court acknowledged this statement but still rejected bail. 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 2 CRLA No. 2679 of 2025 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 29.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 1369/2025, Mohd. Ashfak Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Raunahi, District Ayodhya 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. (Additional Government Advocate) would vehemently oppose the bail application of the accused, Mohd. Ashfak, in connection with Case Crime No. 195 of 2025. The application challenges the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offense alleged against the victim, who is a 17-year-old minor girl. The FIR was lodged under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS, and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, among others, for the alleged abduction of the minor victim. The lower court's rejection order, which is being challenged, notes that the victim's statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. indicated that the accused "Ashfak lured her and she wants to marry him"; despite this, the Special Judge found insufficient grounds to grant bail. The documents confirm the accused has been languishing in jail since 06.06.2025. The prosecution is bound by the fact that the victim refused internal and external medical examination. The Special Judge, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments regarding the victim's statement, 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. 195 of 2025 at P.S. Raunahi, Ayodhya, involving the Applicant/Accused, Mohd. Ashfak, who has been in jail since 06.06.2025 over the alleged abduction of the victim, a minor of 17 years. The Applicant/Accused's defense contends the FIR story is "totally false and fabricated," asserting the entire incident was fully consensual, and the victim's Section 180 B.N.S.S. statement indicates she was lured by him and now wishes to marry him. Crucially, the defense highlights the victim's refusal of all internal and external medical examination and his lack of criminal history, arguing that the lower court failed to properly appreciate this material evidence, and therefore, its order passed on 29.07.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ayodhya in 3 CRLA No. 2679 of 2025 Bail Application No. 1369 of 2025; Mohd. Ashfak Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Raunahi, District Ayodhya is prayed to be set aside. Let the appellant- Mohd. Ashfak, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 195 of 2025 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 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. (I.A. No.01 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal, numbered 2679 of 2025, has been preferred under Section 14- A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ayodhya (Faizabad), whereby the bail application of the appellant (Mohd. Ashfak) in Case Crime No. 195 of 2025, Under Section 137(2), 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Raunahi, District-Ayodhya, was rejected. The Applicant/Accused, Mohd. Ashfak, has filed a Criminal Appeal against the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya, rejecting his bail application. He has been in jail since 06.06.2025 (not 08.05.2025) in connection with Case Crime No. 195 of 2025 (not 208 of 2025) under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS, and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. The genesis of the controversy is the alleged abduction of the victim, who is stated to be a minor of 17 years (not a married lady with three children). The applicant asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a "totally false and fabricated" story, arguing that the whole incident occurred in consent with the victim/respondent. The defence highlights that the victim's statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. claimed that the accused "Ashfak lured her and she wants to marry him" and that the lower court acknowledged this statement but still rejected bail. 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 2 CRLA No. 2679 of 2025 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 29.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 1369/2025, Mohd. Ashfak Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Raunahi, District Ayodhya 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. (Additional Government Advocate) would vehemently oppose the bail application of the accused, Mohd. Ashfak, in connection with Case Crime No. 195 of 2025. The application challenges the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offense alleged against the victim, who is a 17-year-old minor girl. The FIR was lodged under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS, and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, among others, for the alleged abduction of the minor victim. The lower court's rejection order, which is being challenged, notes that the victim's statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. indicated that the accused "Ashfak lured her and she wants to marry him"; despite this, the Special Judge found insufficient grounds to grant bail. The documents confirm the accused has been languishing in jail since 06.06.2025. The prosecution is bound by the fact that the victim refused internal and external medical examination. The Special Judge, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments regarding the victim's statement, 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. 195 of 2025 at P.S. Raunahi, Ayodhya, involving the Applicant/Accused, Mohd. Ashfak, who has been in jail since 06.06.2025 over the alleged abduction of the victim, a minor of 17 years. The Applicant/Accused's defense contends the FIR story is "totally false and fabricated," asserting the entire incident was fully consensual, and the victim's Section 180 B.N.S.S. statement indicates she was lured by him and now wishes to marry him. Crucially, the defense highlights the victim's refusal of all internal and external medical examination and his lack of criminal history, arguing that the lower court failed to properly appreciate this material evidence, and therefore, its order passed on 29.07.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ayodhya in 3 CRLA No. 2679 of 2025 Bail Application No. 1369 of 2025; Mohd. Ashfak Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Raunahi, District Ayodhya is prayed to be set aside. Let the appellant- Mohd. Ashfak, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 195 of 2025 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 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