Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Lal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9885

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 132 of 2025

Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Lal Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiva Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Narendra Singh,Sarfraz Ahmad

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act,Â District Lakhimpur Kheri.Â

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.Â

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant thatÂ in this caseÂ the appellant is innocent and has committed no offenceÂ but the F.I.R was lodged againstÂ him by the fatherÂ of the victim who was aged about 15 years. It is further submitted thatÂ he neverÂ enticed away the girl. The statement of the victim under section 183 B.N.S.S was recordedÂ before the learned MagistrateÂ in whichÂ she stated clearlyÂ that sheÂ was taken awayÂ by Prahlad and Premsagar and left in the way and found herselfÂ in the Mumbai Railway Station, then she made contactÂ with her relative to whom she narrated the incident and he informed to her houseÂ and brought her to her home.He did not commit any rape with her.Â The statementÂ of victim shows thatÂ there was no involvementÂ of the present appellantÂ in the incident.Â He is in jail since 30.11.2024. The Court below 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. 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.

¶9

LearnedÂ AGAÂ opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for complainant as well as learned A.G.AÂ and have gone through the entire

¶11

record including the impugned order carefully.

¶12

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,Â this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the appellant-Â Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Lal Chauhan,Â involved in Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, under Sections 137(2),87 BNS andÂ 3(2)5/4Â SC/ST Act, P.S. Padhuwa, District Lakhimpur Kheri be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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.

¶15

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

The appellant will not pressurise/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

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

¶21

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 GS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Lal Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Lal Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinay Jaiswal @ Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Nafis and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Shrama @ Arjun vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Munsrif and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P.