Ramesh Kumar v. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No

: Ajay Rajput, Abhishek Singh, Shailesh Kumar Srivastava, Shanker Lal Verma, Vijay Rajput Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. On 18.09.2025 this Court had passed the following order: “Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the instant bail appeal. However, Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State indicate that service of notice is sufficient upon private opposite party No. 2. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned today. List/put up this case on 07.10.2025. It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in this case, the case would not be adjourned on account of non-appearance of private opposite party No. 2 and it would be heard and decided on merits.”

3. Today when the case is taken up, neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that the opposite party No.2 is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has 2 CRLA No. 3503 of 2024 no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

5. 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 27.09.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No.379/2024 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 213/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 64 B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Kheri, hereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the First Information Report allegation against the appellant has been made only for hurling caste- based slurs, threatened for life, but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix added that she was kicked, and when she fell on the wire, the accused tied her mouth and hands and, after dragging her into the field, committed rape on her. However, no marks of injury of any kind were found on the body of the prosecutrix. As per the medical report, the hymen was found old, torn, and healed, and no definite opinion regarding rape was given. He further submits that the age of the prosecutrix is 45 years while the appellant is aged about 21 years. The version given in the F.I.R. is not substantiated by any cogent evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutrix had borrowed some money from the appellant when he asked her to return his money, then she lodged the F.I.R. against him.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant is languishing in jail since 04.09.2024. All the criminal history of the appellant have been explained in paragraph 6 of the Rejoinder Affidavit, 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.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 3 CRLA No. 3503 of 2024 the court of (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri learned Additional Sessions 27.09.2024 passed by Judge/Special Judge in Bail Application No.379/2024 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 213/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 64 B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Kheri deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant has committed rape on the prosecutrix, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. He also submitted that the applicant has a long criminal history. Therefore, the 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 appellant.

11. 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., including the allegations made in the F.I.R. no words were uttered by the prosecutrix to allege that the appellant committed rape on her. However, during the course of investigation, the allegation of rape was levelled against the appellant. No marks of injury of any kind were found on the body of the prosecutrix. As per the medical report, the hymen was found old, torn, and healed, and no definite opinion regarding rape was given as well as that the appellant is in jail since 04.09.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order 27.09.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions in Bail Judge/Special Judge Application No.379/2024 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 213/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 64 B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Kheri is hereby set aside. (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri

13. Let the appellant- Ramesh Kumar 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 4 CRLA No. 3503 of 2024 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 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.

14. 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

15. 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 7, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Ajay Rajput, Abhishek Singh, Shailesh Kumar Srivastava, Shanker Lal Verma, Vijay Rajput Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. On 18.09.2025 this Court had passed the following order: “Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the instant bail appeal. However, Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State indicate that service of notice is sufficient upon private opposite party No. 2. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned today. List/put up this case on 07.10.2025. It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in this case, the case would not be adjourned on account of non-appearance of private opposite party No. 2 and it would be heard and decided on merits.”

3. Today when the case is taken up, neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that the opposite party No.2 is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has 2 CRLA No. 3503 of 2024 no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

5. 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 27.09.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No.379/2024 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 213/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 64 B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Kheri, hereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the First Information Report allegation against the appellant has been made only for hurling caste- based slurs, threatened for life, but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix added that she was kicked, and when she fell on the wire, the accused tied her mouth and hands and, after dragging her into the field, committed rape on her. However, no marks of injury of any kind were found on the body of the prosecutrix. As per the medical report, the hymen was found old, torn, and healed, and no definite opinion regarding rape was given. He further submits that the age of the prosecutrix is 45 years while the appellant is aged about 21 years. The version given in the F.I.R. is not substantiated by any cogent evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutrix had borrowed some money from the appellant when he asked her to return his money, then she lodged the F.I.R. against him.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant is languishing in jail since 04.09.2024. All the criminal history of the appellant have been explained in paragraph 6 of the Rejoinder Affidavit, 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.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 3 CRLA No. 3503 of 2024 the court of (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri learned Additional Sessions 27.09.2024 passed by Judge/Special Judge in Bail Application No.379/2024 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 213/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 64 B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Kheri deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant has committed rape on the prosecutrix, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. He also submitted that the applicant has a long criminal history. Therefore, the 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 appellant.

11. 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., including the allegations made in the F.I.R. no words were uttered by the prosecutrix to allege that the appellant committed rape on her. However, during the course of investigation, the allegation of rape was levelled against the appellant. No marks of injury of any kind were found on the body of the prosecutrix. As per the medical report, the hymen was found old, torn, and healed, and no definite opinion regarding rape was given as well as that the appellant is in jail since 04.09.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order 27.09.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions in Bail Judge/Special Judge Application No.379/2024 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 213/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 64 B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Kheri is hereby set aside. (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri

13. Let the appellant- Ramesh Kumar 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 4 CRLA No. 3503 of 2024 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 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.

14. 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

15. 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 7, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench