Irfan @ Tufail vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15670

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11335 of 2024

Appellant :- Irfan @ Tufail Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant- Irfan @ Tufail with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kushinagar at Padrauna in Second Bail Application No. 2406 of 2024.

¶9

The minor daughter of the informant was missing since 07.08.2024 at about 11:00 am and she was not traced. The F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶10

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 completely missing in this case. It is further submitted that the victim of this case is a major girl. It is also submitted that there are serious contradictions in the statement of the victim under sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S and in her statement under section 183 B.N.S.S the victim of this case has categorically denied of having any physical relation with her on the part of the present accused/appellant. It is further submitted that the present accused/appellant has committed no sexual offence with the victim of this case. She had left her house on her own accord. It is next submitted that the present accused/appellant is having no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that only on the ground of suspicion he has been falsely implicated in

¶11

this case and there is no cogent evidence against him, in so far as charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter. 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 23.08.2024. 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.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application and it has been submitted that victim of this case is a minor girl. However, he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter that no sexual offence has been committed with the victim of this case.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the appellant- Irfan @ Tufail involved in Case Crime No. 268 of 2024 under Sections 137(2)/87 of B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Tarya Sujan, District Kushinagar 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Vikram

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irfan @ Tufail v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan @ Tufail 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

Pushpendra Sahu vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulam Kadir Alias Vishal vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Rai Alias Pramod Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem shankar Tiwari and 3 Ors. vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit vs State of U.P. and Another