LUCKNOW vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. Learned AG.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record. As per the office report dated 05.12.2025 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, it appears that she is not interested to file any counter affidavit. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal. 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 10.10.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in First Bail Application No. 3256 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 134/2025, under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 127(4) B.N.S. 2023 (corresponding Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 344) and 67 IT Act, 3/5 (1) the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and 3(2) (5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Banduakala, District Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. 2 CRLA No. 3604 of 2025 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the F.I.R., the appellant-accused the victim to certain places and forcibly established a physical relationship with her. It is further alleged that the appellant-accused prepared a video clip and pressurised her to convert her religion, and also threatened to kill her parents. Due to such pressure, she could not give any statement against the appellant-accused before the Magistrate. It is further alleged that the appellant-accused again came to her parental house and forcibly pressurised her to convert her religion, and when the victim resisted, the appellant-accused abused her using caste-based slurs and also threatened to kill her. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the victim had fallen in love with the appellant-accused and voluntarily left her parental home to join his company. He further submits that, during the course of investigation, the victim gave statements to the Investigating Officer as well as before the Magistrate that she had voluntarily left her parental home of her own free will, and that the appellant-accused never pressurised or enticed her to do so. He also submits that the Investigating Officer did not find any substance in the matter and accordingly submitted a final report. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that thereafter a new story was developed by the prosecution and a second F.I.R. was lodged, alleging that the appellant-accused had committed rape upon the victim, pressurised her to convert her religion, and abused her with caste-based slurs. He further submits that the second F.I.R. was lodged after more than two months of the first F.I.R., which had been registered by the victim’s mother regarding her missing. After lodging of the second F.I.R., as per the new story, the victim’s statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer as well as before the Magistrate, wherein she made allegations of rape and religious conversion against the appellant-accused. Thus, the victim has given contradictory statements on two occasions before the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate. He further submits that the victim is a major, aged more than 18 years. He next submits that the parents of the victim pressurised her, and thereafter the second F.I.R. was lodged with a concocted story. He also submits that, as per the medical report, no external injury was found and no incriminating article, 3 CRLA No. 3604 of 2025 video, or photograph was recovered from the possession of the appellant- accused. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 05.09.2025 and having no criminal history to his credit. 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 has opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant is the main culprit, who took away the victim after enticing her, pressurised her to convert her religion, and forcibly established a physical relationship with her. He further submits that, during the course of investigation, the victim categorically stated before the Investigating Officer as well as before the Magistrate that the appellant-accused had committed rape upon her, pressurised her for conversion of religion, and prepared an obscene video clip, therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, it transpires that an F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim stating that the victim, aged about 18 years, had left her house without any information, and she expressed suspicion that someone might have enticed her daughter for marriage. During the course of investigation, the statement of the informant was recorded, but she did not state a single word alleging that the appellant- accused had enticed her daughter. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS before the Investigating Officer, stated that she was aged about 18 years and was a major, and that she had voluntarily gone with the appellant-accused. Her statement was also recorded under 4 CRLA No. 3604 of 2025 Section 183 BNSS, wherein she reiterated that she had voluntarily gone with the appellant-accused and that he had never applied any force or pressure upon her. On that basis, the Investigating Officer concluded the investigation and submitted a final report, finding no offence against the appellant-accused. Subsequently, after a long gap, another F.I.R. in respect of the same incident was lodged by the victim herself, wherein she completely changed her version and made allegations against the appellant-accused that he had forcibly taken her away, committed rape upon her, and pressurised her to convert her religion. Thereafter, she gave statements to the Investigating Officer as well as before the Magistrate to the same effect. Thus, there are two versions placed by the prosecution before the Court, and at this stage it cannot be concluded as to which version is true. However, there are material contradictions between the two versions, and the victim is aged more than 18 years and is a major ; the appellant is languishing in jail since 05.09.2025 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 10.10.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in First Bail Application No. 3256 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 134/2025, under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 127(4) B.N.S. 2023 (corresponding Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 344) and 67 IT Act, 3/5 (1) the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and 3(2) (5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Banduakala, District Sultanpur, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Asif @ Gudda 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. 5 CRLA No. 3604 of 2025 (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. 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 11, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. Learned AG.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record. As per the office report dated 05.12.2025 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, it appears that she is not interested to file any counter affidavit. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal. 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 10.10.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in First Bail Application No. 3256 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 134/2025, under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 127(4) B.N.S. 2023 (corresponding Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 344) and 67 IT Act, 3/5 (1) the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and 3(2) (5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Banduakala, District Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. 2 CRLA No. 3604 of 2025 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the F.I.R., the appellant-accused the victim to certain places and forcibly established a physical relationship with her. It is further alleged that the appellant-accused prepared a video clip and pressurised her to convert her religion, and also threatened to kill her parents. Due to such pressure, she could not give any statement against the appellant-accused before the Magistrate. It is further alleged that the appellant-accused again came to her parental house and forcibly pressurised her to convert her religion, and when the victim resisted, the appellant-accused abused her using caste-based slurs and also threatened to kill her. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the victim had fallen in love with the appellant-accused and voluntarily left her parental home to join his company. He further submits that, during the course of investigation, the victim gave statements to the Investigating Officer as well as before the Magistrate that she had voluntarily left her parental home of her own free will, and that the appellant-accused never pressurised or enticed her to do so. He also submits that the Investigating Officer did not find any substance in the matter and accordingly submitted a final report. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that thereafter a new story was developed by the prosecution and a second F.I.R. was lodged, alleging that the appellant-accused had committed rape upon the victim, pressurised her to convert her religion, and abused her with caste-based slurs. He further submits that the second F.I.R. was lodged after more than two months of the first F.I.R., which had been registered by the victim’s mother regarding her missing. After lodging of the second F.I.R., as per the new story, the victim’s statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer as well as before the Magistrate, wherein she made allegations of rape and religious conversion against the appellant-accused. Thus, the victim has given contradictory statements on two occasions before the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate. He further submits that the victim is a major, aged more than 18 years. He next submits that the parents of the victim pressurised her, and thereafter the second F.I.R. was lodged with a concocted story. He also submits that, as per the medical report, no external injury was found and no incriminating article, 3 CRLA No. 3604 of 2025 video, or photograph was recovered from the possession of the appellant- accused. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 05.09.2025 and having no criminal history to his credit. 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 has opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant is the main culprit, who took away the victim after enticing her, pressurised her to convert her religion, and forcibly established a physical relationship with her. He further submits that, during the course of investigation, the victim categorically stated before the Investigating Officer as well as before the Magistrate that the appellant-accused had committed rape upon her, pressurised her for conversion of religion, and prepared an obscene video clip, therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, it transpires that an F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim stating that the victim, aged about 18 years, had left her house without any information, and she expressed suspicion that someone might have enticed her daughter for marriage. During the course of investigation, the statement of the informant was recorded, but she did not state a single word alleging that the appellant- accused had enticed her daughter. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS before the Investigating Officer, stated that she was aged about 18 years and was a major, and that she had voluntarily gone with the appellant-accused. Her statement was also recorded under 4 CRLA No. 3604 of 2025 Section 183 BNSS, wherein she reiterated that she had voluntarily gone with the appellant-accused and that he had never applied any force or pressure upon her. On that basis, the Investigating Officer concluded the investigation and submitted a final report, finding no offence against the appellant-accused. Subsequently, after a long gap, another F.I.R. in respect of the same incident was lodged by the victim herself, wherein she completely changed her version and made allegations against the appellant-accused that he had forcibly taken her away, committed rape upon her, and pressurised her to convert her religion. Thereafter, she gave statements to the Investigating Officer as well as before the Magistrate to the same effect. Thus, there are two versions placed by the prosecution before the Court, and at this stage it cannot be concluded as to which version is true. However, there are material contradictions between the two versions, and the victim is aged more than 18 years and is a major ; the appellant is languishing in jail since 05.09.2025 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 10.10.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in First Bail Application No. 3256 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 134/2025, under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 127(4) B.N.S. 2023 (corresponding Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 344) and 67 IT Act, 3/5 (1) the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and 3(2) (5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Banduakala, District Sultanpur, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Asif @ Gudda 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. 5 CRLA No. 3604 of 2025 (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. 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 11, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench