Allowed

Golu @ Ritesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025/397/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a case under Sections 87, 70(1) BNS and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. Relying on parity with co-accused released earlier and a DNA report not supporting the prosecution story, the High Court allowed the appeal and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Golu @ Ritesh Kumar released on bail on personal bond Rs.25,000/- with two like sureties, subject to conditions; order dated 04.01.2025 rejecting bail set aside.

Golu @ Ritesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 397 of 2025

Golu @ Ritesh Kumar

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Prakash Chandra, Uttam Kumar Awasthi

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 and perused the record. Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶12

The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 04.01.2025, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hardoi in Bail Application No.3306/2024 (Golu @ Ritesh Kumar Vs. State), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.416 of 2024, under Sections - 87, 70(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Mallawan, District - Hardoi, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶13

While pressing the instant application for bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶14

He further stated that co-accused namely Pappu Maurya has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1702 of 2025. Copy of bail order of co-accused Pappu Maurya has been placed before this Court for perusal of the Court. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

Relevant portion of the order dated 08.09.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1702 of 2025 on reproduction reads as under:-

¶16

CRLA No. 397 of 2025

¶17

¶18

"1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Uttar Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶19

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 336 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi.

¶20

3. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that according to the FIR lodged against unknown person by opposite party no.2, the victim/opposite party no.3 on her own volition left her parental house on 24.09.2024 and she was about 20 years old and the same itself indicates that victim was in affair and therefore she on her own volition left her parental house and this aspect of the case can also be inferred from the fact that FIR was lodged after delay on 26.09.2024.

¶21

4. It is further stated that statement of the victim was recorded after being recovered by the Investigating Officer on 27.09.2024 and thereafter the statement was recorded by concerned Magistrate in terms of section 183 BNSS wherein the victim levelled allegations related to establishing physical relation with her against her wishes against appellant-Pappu Maurya, Ashish and Golu and therefore, the Section 70(1) BNS which relates to gang rape was added.

¶22

5. It is also stated that the statements were given by the victim under the pressure of opposite party no. 2 and therefore, she is not a sterling and this aspect of the case can be inferred from the fact that to corroborate the offence under Section 70(1) BNS the prosecution has having no medical evidence. In this regard, reference has been made to medico-legal report, according to which, no injury was found over the body of the deceased external or internal.

¶23

6. It is further submitted that victim, an adult, was having relationship and on her own volition, left her house could also be interfered and deduced from the Annexure No. 8, which is also a medical report of the victim according to which the pregnancy was found positive.

¶24

7. It is also stated that the appellant has been falsely implicated only being the friend of coaccused Golu with whom the victim was in affair and the same is evident from the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS according to which the victim and the co-accused Golu were in contact for a period of about two years prior to lodging of FIR against unknown person.

¶25

8. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 30.01.2025 and has no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶26

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Uttar Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶27

10. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses including the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS.

¶28

11. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the medical opinion and the age of the victim and her statements which prima facie indicate that victim was in touch/contact of co-accused Golu as also the period of incarceration also 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.

¶29

12. Order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 336 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi is set aside.

¶30

CRLA No. 397 of 2025

¶31

¶32

13. Let appellant- Pappu Maurya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶33

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶34

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶35

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶36

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶37

(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.

¶38

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶39

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶40

(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.

¶41

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

¶42

15. 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."

¶43

It is also stated that co-accused Ashish Kumar has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2025. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that taking note of the allegations leveled against all the accused as also the D.N.A. report annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit filed today which has been kept on record, which does not support the story of the prosecution, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶44

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court.

¶45

Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counel for the private opposite parties and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court 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 .

¶46

Order dated 04.01.2025, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hardoi

¶47

CRLA No. 397 of 2025

¶48

¶49

in Bail Application No.3306/2024 (Golu @ Ritesh Kumar Vs. State), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.416 of 2024, under Sections - 87, 70(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Mallawan, District - Hardoi is hereby set aside.

¶50

Let the appellant - Golu alias Ritesh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :-

¶51

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶52

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶53

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶54

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶55

¶56

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶57

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶58

(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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶62

November 19, 2025 ML/-

¶63

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Golu @ Ritesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golu @ Ritesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arif Anwar Hashmi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Radha Devi and 2 Others Vs Dinesh Kumar

Monu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Gokul Prasad Jaiswal vs Sri Kumar Prashant, Director, Social Welfare Deptt. U.P. Kalyan Bhawan Lko.

Manoj Kumar Tripathi and 17 Others vs Dr. Ram Chandra, Presently Posted as Dist. Inspector of Schools Dist. Gonda

Ayodhya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another