Prem Alias Golu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39881

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1277 of 2025 Appellant :- Prem Alias Golu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh,D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Mayank Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arun Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 15.04.2025, passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.2341 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 80 of 2025, under Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2) V A of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gudamba, District - Lucknow.

¶8

While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the informant/victim has levelleved allegations in the FIR against the appellant to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the appellant established physical relations with her, thus, if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value then in that eventuality, possibility of conviction of appellant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s) rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 7 SCC; Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110 and Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230.

¶9

It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 06.03.2025. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

¶11

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶12

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 06.03.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

¶13

Order dated 15.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.2341 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 80 of 2025, under Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2) V A of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gudamba, District - Lucknow is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Prem alias Golu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order.

¶25

Order Date :- 14.7.2025

¶26

ML/-

¶27

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

Prem Alias Golu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Alias Golu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baijnath Alias Kabil and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Singh vs Sri Surya Pal Gangwar, District Magistrate Lko.

Prem Alias Golu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sonu Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nidhi Prajapati (Minor) Thru. Her Father Pappu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shankar Lal vs Sanjay Chauhan, District Magistrate Amethi