Rahul Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9302

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 156 of 2025 Appellant :- Rahul Soni Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Verma,Neetesh Kumar,Vinay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Devendra Verma,Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

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 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

¶7

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 committed no offence. As per version in the F.I.R. the victim developed relations with the appellant on instagram and then physical relations were also established with her with her consent. She went from her home to Lucknow voluntarily, it shows that she was volunteer. No force or violence was used by appellant against her will. During medical examination, no any injury was found on the person of victim to infer that rape was committed with her. She was major at the time of alleged incident, therefore, offence under Section 376 IPC cannot be said to be made out. 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. Appellant is in jail since 15.08.2024. 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.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party as well as AGA opposed the prayer for bail and contended that the appellant administered obnoxious substance on the victim and then established physical relation and Rs. 2,80,000/- were also got transferred from her A.T.M.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 age of her consciousness, 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Let the appellant Rahul Soni involved in Case Crime No. 322 of 2024, under Sections 354-GA, 376, 328, 506, 420 IPC and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Jahangirabad, District Barabanki 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.

¶13

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

¶14

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Anurag Singh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shahzad S/O Ghulam Vs State of U.P.

Ram Samuj @ Majjai Vs State of U.P.

Ram Prakash @ Natoo and Anothers. Vs State of U.P.

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