Ashish Yadav v. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No

(Ashish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2025, under Section 69, 115(2), 109(1), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, as per the prosecution version, the appellant (Ashish Yadav son of Babu Lal) trapped the victim in love and eloped with her on 28.05.2023, about two years ago. Since then, the victim had been living in a rented room. It is also alleged that the appellant continuously raped her for two years, as a result of which the victim gave birth to a child on 21.03.2025. When the victim asked him to marry her, the appellant and his family members refused, assaulted her, hurled caste-based abuses, threatened to kill her, and also attempted to strangulate her with a scarf (dupatta).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has 2 CRLA No. 2717 of 2025 falsely been implicated in the present case. The victim is a married women, having child and she was not divorced by her husband (Ashish) and her first marriage is in existence. He next submits that the victim’s father has given statement to the Investigating Officer that her daughter gave up parental house voluntarily and she is living with one Ashish son of Babu Lal (appellant) in a rented room.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that, in fact, the appellant was working as a cook at Police Station Loni Katra in the year 2022, where he became acquainted with the victim, who was already married, during this period, the victim had borrowed money from the appellant and when he asked her to return the same, she falsely implicated the appellant. He further submits that the father and husband of the victim had abandoned her as she had developed relations with another person. He also submits that the victim had refused to undergo medical examination.

6. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and 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.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

22.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2301/2025 (Ashish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2025, under Section 69, 115(2), 109(1), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that on the false pretext of marriage, the victim entered into a relationship with the appellant, and by deceiving her, the appellant established physical 3 CRLA No. 2717 of 2025 relations with her. Thereafter, the appellant took her away and, again on the false pretext of marriage, continued to establish physical relations with her. It is further submitted that when the victim became pregnant and subsequently gave birth to a child, she insisted on solemnizing the marriage, but the appellant refused to marry her. The appellant and his family members then abused her with casteist slurs, threatened to kill her, and also attempted to strangulate her with a scarf (dupatta). 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.

9. 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 on perusal of the material available on record, it demonstrates that the victim was major at the time of alleged incident. It is not disputed that the previously the victim was married with some Ashish. From the perusal of the compromise annexed with counter affidavit as Annexure-2 filed by the State respondent that Ashish son of Ram Sagar was married with the victim and on 10.02.2020 they have decided to dissolve the marriage, but there is no such document on record. There is a statement of the victim’s father, who had stated to the Investigating Officer that two years ago her daughter had gone voluntarily and she was major at that time, therefore, he did not give any application elsewhere. Now her daughter is living with Ashish (appellant), which shows that the victim was a married woman whose marriage had not been dissolved in any lawful manner; as per statement of the victim, which was recorded before the Magistrate, she was in love with the appellant, though she was raped her continuously two years on the pretext of marriage; it was not possible to solemnize second marriage, where first marriage was in existence, it appears that it is a matter of consensual relationship and the victim voluntarily choose that kind of relationship and she knows the consequences very well; there is no such averment that the appellant has committed rape on the victim, due to the reason that she belongs to scheduled caste community and also considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 06.07.2025 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without 4 CRLA No. 2717 of 2025 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.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2301/2025 (Ashish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2025, under Section 69, 115(2), 109(1), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant-Ashish Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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.

12. 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 5 CRLA No. 2717 of 2025

13. 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 14, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

(Ashish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2025, under Section 69, 115(2), 109(1), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, as per the prosecution version, the appellant (Ashish Yadav son of Babu Lal) trapped the victim in love and eloped with her on 28.05.2023, about two years ago. Since then, the victim had been living in a rented room. It is also alleged that the appellant continuously raped her for two years, as a result of which the victim gave birth to a child on 21.03.2025. When the victim asked him to marry her, the appellant and his family members refused, assaulted her, hurled caste-based abuses, threatened to kill her, and also attempted to strangulate her with a scarf (dupatta).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has 2 CRLA No. 2717 of 2025 falsely been implicated in the present case. The victim is a married women, having child and she was not divorced by her husband (Ashish) and her first marriage is in existence. He next submits that the victim’s father has given statement to the Investigating Officer that her daughter gave up parental house voluntarily and she is living with one Ashish son of Babu Lal (appellant) in a rented room.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that, in fact, the appellant was working as a cook at Police Station Loni Katra in the year 2022, where he became acquainted with the victim, who was already married, during this period, the victim had borrowed money from the appellant and when he asked her to return the same, she falsely implicated the appellant. He further submits that the father and husband of the victim had abandoned her as she had developed relations with another person. He also submits that the victim had refused to undergo medical examination.

6. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and 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.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

22.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2301/2025 (Ashish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2025, under Section 69, 115(2), 109(1), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that on the false pretext of marriage, the victim entered into a relationship with the appellant, and by deceiving her, the appellant established physical 3 CRLA No. 2717 of 2025 relations with her. Thereafter, the appellant took her away and, again on the false pretext of marriage, continued to establish physical relations with her. It is further submitted that when the victim became pregnant and subsequently gave birth to a child, she insisted on solemnizing the marriage, but the appellant refused to marry her. The appellant and his family members then abused her with casteist slurs, threatened to kill her, and also attempted to strangulate her with a scarf (dupatta). 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.

9. 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 on perusal of the material available on record, it demonstrates that the victim was major at the time of alleged incident. It is not disputed that the previously the victim was married with some Ashish. From the perusal of the compromise annexed with counter affidavit as Annexure-2 filed by the State respondent that Ashish son of Ram Sagar was married with the victim and on 10.02.2020 they have decided to dissolve the marriage, but there is no such document on record. There is a statement of the victim’s father, who had stated to the Investigating Officer that two years ago her daughter had gone voluntarily and she was major at that time, therefore, he did not give any application elsewhere. Now her daughter is living with Ashish (appellant), which shows that the victim was a married woman whose marriage had not been dissolved in any lawful manner; as per statement of the victim, which was recorded before the Magistrate, she was in love with the appellant, though she was raped her continuously two years on the pretext of marriage; it was not possible to solemnize second marriage, where first marriage was in existence, it appears that it is a matter of consensual relationship and the victim voluntarily choose that kind of relationship and she knows the consequences very well; there is no such averment that the appellant has committed rape on the victim, due to the reason that she belongs to scheduled caste community and also considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 06.07.2025 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without 4 CRLA No. 2717 of 2025 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.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2301/2025 (Ashish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2025, under Section 69, 115(2), 109(1), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant-Ashish Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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.

12. 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 5 CRLA No. 2717 of 2025

13. 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 14, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench