Raja Alias Mohammad Gulam Gaus Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26963

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10641 of 2024

Appellant :- Raja Alias Mohammad Gulam Gaus Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Mishra 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.

¶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 - Raja Alias Mohammad Gulam Gaus with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Fatehpur in Bail Application No.1737 of 2024.

¶8

The major victim lady when gone to ease herself on 30.7.2024 at about 4.30 pm the present accused appellant Raja caught hold her from behind and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. Since he was using the motorcycle of Ram Singh in the commission of the said offence when the informant and her family members went to his house Ram Singh, he and his family members hurled abuses to the victim. FIR was lodged and the victim was medically examined and now the charge sheet against the present appellant has been submitted.

¶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 there are material contradictions in the statements given by the victim herself under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 183 BNSS the offence was exaggerated and the allegation of rape was also levelled by the lady victim against the present appellant. It is also submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged belatedly and there was no reason for the prosecutrix who herself is the informant to conceal the real facts of this case if some rape was committed to

¶10

her. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. It is also submitted that the medical report and the report obtained from FSL did not corroborate the prosecution version at all. 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 19.8.2024. 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 7.10.2024 but however he conceded this fact that the FIR was lodged under Sections 74, 131, 352 B.N.S. and 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)va SC/ST Act and only an allegation to outrage the modesty of the victim has been levelled against the appellant but in her subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS an allegation of rape suddenly was levelled.

¶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, 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 appellant - Raja Alias Mohammad Gulam Gaus involved in Case Crime No. 148 of 2024 under Sections 64 (1) and 351 (3) B.N.S. & Sections 3(2)(V), 3(2)(VA) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Hathgaon, District- Fatehpur 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 :- 27.2.2025 Fhd

¶23

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

Raja Alias Mohammad Gulam Gaus v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Alias Mohammad Gulam Gaus 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