Ashok Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 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 10.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), District- Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No. 208 of 2025, Under Section 69, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Dewa, District-Barabanki, was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Ashok Kumar Yadav, has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 208 of 2025 and is currently languishing in jail since 08.05.2025 without any fault. The genesis of the controversy is a relationship that spanned approximately three years between the appellant and the prosecutrix, who is a married lady with three children, and belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Pasi) category. The appellant neither enticed the prosecutrix nor established any relationship under coercion, as the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 183 BNS, accepted that she lived with the appellant "like a wife" for the last three years. The appellant contends this was a consensual, extra-marital relationship that was within the knowledge of her husband for at least one year. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated, with the FIR being lodged only after the prosecutrix became five months pregnant and the appellant refused marriage due to caste differences. The Trial Court committed a manifest error by summarily rejecting bail without appreciating this critical evidence, especially since the prosecutrix is a married woman, challenging the applicability of Section 69 BNS (false promise to marry). The appellant further submits that the Medico-Legal Examination Report is highly favorable, noting no spermatozoa in the vaginal smear, a finding of "Hymen Torned & 2 CRLA No. 2621 of 2025 healed," and an opinion that "no definite opinion of reserved assault can be given." The appellant asserts he was falsely fixed in this criminal case due to the lust of property, as the first informant and her husband sought to stop the appellant from selling his land. He argues the SC/ST Act is also inapplicable, as there is no evidence and the offense was committed solely on the ground of the victim's caste, nor that the appellant had knowledge of her caste. The appellant has no criminal history, the Charge Sheet has been submitted on 09.05.2025, and he 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 10.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2293/2025, Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2025, under Section 69, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki 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. would vehemently oppose the bail, submitting that the appellant, Ashok Kumar Yadav, committed a serious offense against victim, a member of the Scheduled Caste (Pasi) community, evidenced by the FIR under Section 69 BNS and the SC/ST Act, for deceitfully luring and abandoning her after she became five months pregnant. However, the prosecution faces significant challenges as the factual record, which the defense stresses, shows the prosecutrix is a 35-year-old married woman who lived with the 45-year-old appellant "like a wife" for three years, weakening the charge under Section 69 BNS (false promise to marry). Furthermore, the Medico-Legal Report stating "no definite opinion of reserved assault can be given," and the defense's claim that the case stems from a property dispute, casts doubt on the core allegations and the application of the SC/ST Act, suggesting the Special Judge's rejection of bail was erroneous. 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 05.04.2025 and the prosecutrix's subsequent statement (U/s 183 BNS) confirm a relationship that continued for approximately three years, with the prosecutrix affirming she lived with the appellant "like a wife". The prosecutrix, is a 35-year-old married lady with children, and the Appellant, Ashok Kumar Yadav, is 45 years old. This fact significantly challenges the application of Section 69 BNS (sexual intercourse based on a false promise to marry) given her existing marital status. Crucially, the Medico-Legal Examination Report (Annexure No. 5) is a key factor, as it indicates "no definite opinion of reserved assault can be given," with no spermatozoa seen and the Hymen noted as "Torned & healed." This severely weakens any allegation of recent sexual assault or coercion. It 3 CRLA No. 2621 of 2025 is also noted that the appellant has been in jail since 08.05.2025 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 long-term relationship, the prosecutrix's marital status, and the favorable 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

10.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2293/2025; Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2025, under Section 69, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Dewa, District Barabanki is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Ashok 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 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. 4 CRLA No. 2621 of 2025 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 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 10.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), District- Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No. 208 of 2025, Under Section 69, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Dewa, District-Barabanki, was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Ashok Kumar Yadav, has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 208 of 2025 and is currently languishing in jail since 08.05.2025 without any fault. The genesis of the controversy is a relationship that spanned approximately three years between the appellant and the prosecutrix, who is a married lady with three children, and belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Pasi) category. The appellant neither enticed the prosecutrix nor established any relationship under coercion, as the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 183 BNS, accepted that she lived with the appellant "like a wife" for the last three years. The appellant contends this was a consensual, extra-marital relationship that was within the knowledge of her husband for at least one year. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated, with the FIR being lodged only after the prosecutrix became five months pregnant and the appellant refused marriage due to caste differences. The Trial Court committed a manifest error by summarily rejecting bail without appreciating this critical evidence, especially since the prosecutrix is a married woman, challenging the applicability of Section 69 BNS (false promise to marry). The appellant further submits that the Medico-Legal Examination Report is highly favorable, noting no spermatozoa in the vaginal smear, a finding of "Hymen Torned & 2 CRLA No. 2621 of 2025 healed," and an opinion that "no definite opinion of reserved assault can be given." The appellant asserts he was falsely fixed in this criminal case due to the lust of property, as the first informant and her husband sought to stop the appellant from selling his land. He argues the SC/ST Act is also inapplicable, as there is no evidence and the offense was committed solely on the ground of the victim's caste, nor that the appellant had knowledge of her caste. The appellant has no criminal history, the Charge Sheet has been submitted on 09.05.2025, and he 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 10.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2293/2025, Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2025, under Section 69, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki 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. would vehemently oppose the bail, submitting that the appellant, Ashok Kumar Yadav, committed a serious offense against victim, a member of the Scheduled Caste (Pasi) community, evidenced by the FIR under Section 69 BNS and the SC/ST Act, for deceitfully luring and abandoning her after she became five months pregnant. However, the prosecution faces significant challenges as the factual record, which the defense stresses, shows the prosecutrix is a 35-year-old married woman who lived with the 45-year-old appellant "like a wife" for three years, weakening the charge under Section 69 BNS (false promise to marry). Furthermore, the Medico-Legal Report stating "no definite opinion of reserved assault can be given," and the defense's claim that the case stems from a property dispute, casts doubt on the core allegations and the application of the SC/ST Act, suggesting the Special Judge's rejection of bail was erroneous. 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 05.04.2025 and the prosecutrix's subsequent statement (U/s 183 BNS) confirm a relationship that continued for approximately three years, with the prosecutrix affirming she lived with the appellant "like a wife". The prosecutrix, is a 35-year-old married lady with children, and the Appellant, Ashok Kumar Yadav, is 45 years old. This fact significantly challenges the application of Section 69 BNS (sexual intercourse based on a false promise to marry) given her existing marital status. Crucially, the Medico-Legal Examination Report (Annexure No. 5) is a key factor, as it indicates "no definite opinion of reserved assault can be given," with no spermatozoa seen and the Hymen noted as "Torned & healed." This severely weakens any allegation of recent sexual assault or coercion. It 3 CRLA No. 2621 of 2025 is also noted that the appellant has been in jail since 08.05.2025 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 long-term relationship, the prosecutrix's marital status, and the favorable 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

10.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2293/2025; Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2025, under Section 69, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Dewa, District Barabanki is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Ashok 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 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. 4 CRLA No. 2621 of 2025 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench