Satish @ Rangilal Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24874

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13348 of 2024

Applicant :- Satish @ Rangilal Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sandhya Bharti,Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Sandhya Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0326 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 342, 370-क, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 30.07.2023 against the named accused Kishan stating that the informant's brother had gone missing since 8.00 a.m. on 25.07.2023 and upon making enquiries it came to light that she was seen with the named accused person Kishan.

¶10

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS she stated that Kishan was her friend. When she was going out of her house about a year ago Kishan dropped her near Kathauta crossing. When she had covered a short distance from there the applicant met her and he forcibly took her to his home, where he kept her locked for two months and he used to forcibly made physical relations with her. Thereafter, the applicant sold her away to Shyam Tiwari for Rs.21,000/- by

¶11

mentioning her false name and address. Shyam Tiwari married her inside his home.

¶12

The medico legal examination report of the victim does not mention any mark of injury or use of force.

¶13

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS she alleged that the named accused person had tried to commit the misdeed against her and thereafter he left her in some park. She met the applicant in the park who took her to his home where he kept her locked for two months and raped her and after which he sold her to Shyam Tiwari.

¶14

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the coaccused Kishan has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court by means of an order dated 10.10.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2202 of 2023.

¶15

On 07.01.2025, this court has passed the following order:

¶16

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶17

2. Learned AGA has informed that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 but no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. It appears that one opportunity should be given to opposite party no.2 to file objection/ counter affidavit.

¶18

3. Let objection/ counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

¶19

4. List in the week commencing 10.02.2025 within top ten cases."

¶20

However, no counter affidavit has been filed either by the State or by the opposite party no.2. Although, as per the instructions provided to learned A.G.A. information of this

¶21

application has been delivered to the informant.

¶22

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged after expiry of a considerable period since acts allegedly committed by the applicant; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 28.08.2024 and the investigation already stands concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted on 22.11.2024 and the State as well as the opposite party no.2 have not filed any counter affidavit, whereas co-accused Kishan has been granted anticipatory bail by this court and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶23

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant-Satish @ Rangilal Prajapati be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶25

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Ram.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish @ Rangilal Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish @ Rangilal Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Parul Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Sandeep Madheshiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home District Lko. and 3 Others

Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Puneet Rastogi vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad and 4 Others

Durgesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Saurabh Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.