Ram Chandar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Order

- "1. As per Office report dated 31.10.2025, the service upon the opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. Today, when the case is called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite

party No. 2 to oppose the present case. However, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State are present.

2. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day.

3. List on 24.11.2025.

4. It is made clear that the case would not be adjourned on the next date fixed in absence of opposite party No. 2 and the same would be heard on merits as the issue relates to enlargement of appellant on bail."

2. In the aforesaid background of the case, this court proceeded to decide the case finally.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled 2 CRLA No. 3173 of 2025 Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 10.09.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.2773 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0221 of 2025, under Sections - 70(1), 309(6), 75, 76, 115(2), 352, 351(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Jaisinghpur, District - Sultanpur.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant having no criminal history and languishing in jail since 17.08.2025, is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 21.06.2025 at Police Station-Jaisinghpur, District-Sultanpur is completely bogus, false and concocted.

6. In continuation, it is submitted that from the document available on record, it is apparent that on 02.02.2025 the informant/prosecutrix was admitted in the C.H.C., Jaisinghpur at about 11.00 A.M. and one male child of 2610 Gm was born on 02.02.2025, at 12.30 Noon and this child was died on account of breathing problem. However, in the F.I.R. it has been alleged that on 06.05.2025, she was molested by co-accused Raghunath Sharma, whose interest has been protected by this Court vide order dated 27th August, 2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7639 of 2025, along with others, and she was also raped and due to the same the pregnancy of 8 months was terminated. Thus, the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. are completely false and concocted.

7. It is next submitted that according to the F.I.R. the incident took place on 06.05.2025 and thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged with huge delay on 21.06.2025, which itself is fatal to the story of the prosecution. It is further submitted that after the huge delay from the date of lodging of the F.I.R. the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 08.08.2025, which fact has not been refuted by the learned State Counsel Shri Arun Kumar Pandey based upon the instructions, and this aspect of the case is also fatal to the story of the prosecution.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant furtehr submitted that the appellant was not named in the F.I.R.

9. It is also submitted that interest of other co-accused Rajaram @ Rajaram Verma and Chandramani Verma have also been protected by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025, passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.8662 of 2025. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, 3 CRLA No. 3173 of 2025 however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel as also the fact the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the bail orders of co-accused.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly that the interest of co-accused have already been protected and the story of the prosecution indicted in F.I.R. as also facts indicated hereinabove and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

13. Order dated 10.09.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.2773 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0221 of 2025, under Sections - 70 (1), 309 (6), 75, 76, 115 (2), 352, 351(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Jaisinghpur, District - Sultanpur is hereby set aside.

14. Let the appellant - Ram Chandar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties out of which one should be of family member, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate witness(es). the prosecution (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 will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. 4 CRLA No. 3173 of 2025 (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

15. 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.

16. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. November 24, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

party No. 2 to oppose the present case. However, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State are present.

2. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day.

3. List on 24.11.2025.

4. It is made clear that the case would not be adjourned on the next date fixed in absence of opposite party No. 2 and the same would be heard on merits as the issue relates to enlargement of appellant on bail."

2. In the aforesaid background of the case, this court proceeded to decide the case finally.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled 2 CRLA No. 3173 of 2025 Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 10.09.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.2773 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0221 of 2025, under Sections - 70(1), 309(6), 75, 76, 115(2), 352, 351(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Jaisinghpur, District - Sultanpur.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant having no criminal history and languishing in jail since 17.08.2025, is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 21.06.2025 at Police Station-Jaisinghpur, District-Sultanpur is completely bogus, false and concocted.

6. In continuation, it is submitted that from the document available on record, it is apparent that on 02.02.2025 the informant/prosecutrix was admitted in the C.H.C., Jaisinghpur at about 11.00 A.M. and one male child of 2610 Gm was born on 02.02.2025, at 12.30 Noon and this child was died on account of breathing problem. However, in the F.I.R. it has been alleged that on 06.05.2025, she was molested by co-accused Raghunath Sharma, whose interest has been protected by this Court vide order dated 27th August, 2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7639 of 2025, along with others, and she was also raped and due to the same the pregnancy of 8 months was terminated. Thus, the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. are completely false and concocted.

7. It is next submitted that according to the F.I.R. the incident took place on 06.05.2025 and thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged with huge delay on 21.06.2025, which itself is fatal to the story of the prosecution. It is further submitted that after the huge delay from the date of lodging of the F.I.R. the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 08.08.2025, which fact has not been refuted by the learned State Counsel Shri Arun Kumar Pandey based upon the instructions, and this aspect of the case is also fatal to the story of the prosecution.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant furtehr submitted that the appellant was not named in the F.I.R.

9. It is also submitted that interest of other co-accused Rajaram @ Rajaram Verma and Chandramani Verma have also been protected by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025, passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.8662 of 2025. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, 3 CRLA No. 3173 of 2025 however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel as also the fact the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the bail orders of co-accused.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly that the interest of co-accused have already been protected and the story of the prosecution indicted in F.I.R. as also facts indicated hereinabove and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

13. Order dated 10.09.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.2773 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0221 of 2025, under Sections - 70 (1), 309 (6), 75, 76, 115 (2), 352, 351(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Jaisinghpur, District - Sultanpur is hereby set aside.

14. Let the appellant - Ram Chandar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties out of which one should be of family member, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate witness(es). the prosecution (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 will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. 4 CRLA No. 3173 of 2025 (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

15. 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.

16. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. November 24, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench