Hariom v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

: Anjali Dubey, Soniya Mishra Soni Pathak : G.A., Abhishek Srivastava Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record. 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 05.06.2025 passed by In-charge Additional Session Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 203/2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (a), 3(1) (da), 3 (1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) , 3 (2) (v-a) SC/ST Act, Police Station Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the First Information Report, on 04.04.2024, when the informant was going to her house at about 6:00 p.m., the appellant-accused Hariom met her on the way and asked her to accompany him on his motorcycle. The informant then sat on his bike, and after traveling some distance, the appellant-accused stopped the motorcycle, hurled filthy abuses at her, assaulted her, outraged her modesty, passed urine in her mouth, and removed her jewellery and ₹8,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no eye witness account mentioned in the F.I.R. and there is no allegation of sexual assault in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that after lodging of the F.I.R. the prosecution developed a new story and the informant in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. alleged that the 2 CRLA No. 2688 of 2025 appellant-accused committed rape on her forcibly. He next submits that the appellant-accused is aged about 30 years while the informant is aged about 50 years, who had two boys and two daughters. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that during trial the statement of the informant as PW-3 has been recorded before the court, wherein she had stated that on the consultation and suggestion of the others she lodged the F.I.R. against the appellant-accused Hariom. He next submits that as per testimony of the victim recorded before the court, she has clearly stated that she did not establish physical relationship, except his husband. He also submits that as per her testimony actual statement made by the informant is not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also submits that in the court premises her application was prepared by some counsel, wherein the averment of sexual violence has been averred. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2024 and the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in the affidavit. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the appellant-accused is the main culprit, who has committed rape on victim. They further submitted that the appellant-accused had given a lift to the victim and, on the way, after stopping his motorcycle, he ravished her. They next submitted that, in this regard, the victim gave specific statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate, stating that the appellant-accused had forcibly committed rape upon her. Therefore, the appellant-accused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. In addition to that, the appellant-accused has a criminal history, and if he is enlarged on bail, he will definitely influence the trial. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, it transpires that the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 04.04.2024, whereas the F.I.R. regarding the said incident was lodged on the next day, i.e., on 05.04.2024 at 7:55 p.m. In the F.I.R., there is no allegation of the appellant-accused having committed rape 3 CRLA No. 2688 of 2025 upon the victim. However, during the course of investigation, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the accused had also committed rape on her; It is not in dispute that the trial has commenced and the victim has been examined by the prosecution. In her examination-in-chief as PW-1, a copy of which has been annexed with the appeal, she stated that she is about 45 years of age and was married 35–36 years ago. She also stated that she has two daughters and two sons. The age of one daughter is about 28–30 years, while the other is about 27 years. The age of one son is about 28–29 years and the other is about 18 years. She further stated that the accused-appellant is aged about 17–18 years. She also stated in her testimony that after due consultation, the F.I.R. against Hariom was lodged. She admitted that her statement before the Investigating Officer was recorded at the behest of her family members and that due to their influence, she had given the statement against Hariom. In her examination-in-chief, she clearly deposed that some unknown miscreants had outraged her modesty and further stated that she had not established any physical relationship with anyone except her husband. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of a written tahreer. The appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2024 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by In-charge Additional Session Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 203/2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (a), 3(1) (da), 3 (1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) , 3 (2) (v-a) SC/ST Act, Police Station Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Hariom 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 4 CRLA No. 2688 of 2025 (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. 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. December 10, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Anjali Dubey, Soniya Mishra Soni Pathak : G.A., Abhishek Srivastava Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record. 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 05.06.2025 passed by In-charge Additional Session Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 203/2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (a), 3(1) (da), 3 (1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) , 3 (2) (v-a) SC/ST Act, Police Station Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the First Information Report, on 04.04.2024, when the informant was going to her house at about 6:00 p.m., the appellant-accused Hariom met her on the way and asked her to accompany him on his motorcycle. The informant then sat on his bike, and after traveling some distance, the appellant-accused stopped the motorcycle, hurled filthy abuses at her, assaulted her, outraged her modesty, passed urine in her mouth, and removed her jewellery and ₹8,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no eye witness account mentioned in the F.I.R. and there is no allegation of sexual assault in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that after lodging of the F.I.R. the prosecution developed a new story and the informant in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. alleged that the 2 CRLA No. 2688 of 2025 appellant-accused committed rape on her forcibly. He next submits that the appellant-accused is aged about 30 years while the informant is aged about 50 years, who had two boys and two daughters. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that during trial the statement of the informant as PW-3 has been recorded before the court, wherein she had stated that on the consultation and suggestion of the others she lodged the F.I.R. against the appellant-accused Hariom. He next submits that as per testimony of the victim recorded before the court, she has clearly stated that she did not establish physical relationship, except his husband. He also submits that as per her testimony actual statement made by the informant is not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also submits that in the court premises her application was prepared by some counsel, wherein the averment of sexual violence has been averred. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2024 and the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in the affidavit. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the appellant-accused is the main culprit, who has committed rape on victim. They further submitted that the appellant-accused had given a lift to the victim and, on the way, after stopping his motorcycle, he ravished her. They next submitted that, in this regard, the victim gave specific statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate, stating that the appellant-accused had forcibly committed rape upon her. Therefore, the appellant-accused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. In addition to that, the appellant-accused has a criminal history, and if he is enlarged on bail, he will definitely influence the trial. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, it transpires that the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 04.04.2024, whereas the F.I.R. regarding the said incident was lodged on the next day, i.e., on 05.04.2024 at 7:55 p.m. In the F.I.R., there is no allegation of the appellant-accused having committed rape 3 CRLA No. 2688 of 2025 upon the victim. However, during the course of investigation, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the accused had also committed rape on her; It is not in dispute that the trial has commenced and the victim has been examined by the prosecution. In her examination-in-chief as PW-1, a copy of which has been annexed with the appeal, she stated that she is about 45 years of age and was married 35–36 years ago. She also stated that she has two daughters and two sons. The age of one daughter is about 28–30 years, while the other is about 27 years. The age of one son is about 28–29 years and the other is about 18 years. She further stated that the accused-appellant is aged about 17–18 years. She also stated in her testimony that after due consultation, the F.I.R. against Hariom was lodged. She admitted that her statement before the Investigating Officer was recorded at the behest of her family members and that due to their influence, she had given the statement against Hariom. In her examination-in-chief, she clearly deposed that some unknown miscreants had outraged her modesty and further stated that she had not established any physical relationship with anyone except her husband. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of a written tahreer. The appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2024 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by In-charge Additional Session Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 203/2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (a), 3(1) (da), 3 (1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) , 3 (2) (v-a) SC/ST Act, Police Station Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Hariom 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 4 CRLA No. 2688 of 2025 (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. 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. December 10, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench