Kaushal Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82757

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1028 of 2025

Appellant :- Kaushal Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Kaushal Prajapati with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Bail Application No. 40 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 87 of BNS & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Prem Nagar, District- Jhansi.

¶8

The allegation against the appellant is that on his call the minor daughter of the informant left away her house on 25.7.2024 at about 8.00 pm. FIR was lodged, however during investigation she was traced by her maternal uncle namely Sunil Kumar.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the victim of this case never left her house on any call of the appellant rather she herself left her house and came to the appellant at Jhansi. She had been staying with the appellant for 2-3 days and subsequently she was taken by her maternal uncle from outside the house of the appellant. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. nowhere it has been stated by the victim that any sexual assault was committed upon her by the accused appellant although she stayed with the appellant for 2-3 days she never complained of to any person during this period nor made any noise. It is also submitted that the present

¶10

appellant did not commit any sexual offence against the minor girl. It is further submitted that in the medical examination of the victim nothing adverse was found. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 5.10.2024 having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 13.1.2025. It is further submitted that the daughter of the informant was a minor girl and if she was living with the accused appellant with her consent, her consent is of no legal value and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment also keeping in view this fact that no sexual offence was committed with the minor victim, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside .

¶15

Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Fhd

¶23

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kaushal Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

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