Kailash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44535

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1719 of 2025

Appellant :- Kailash Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2/complainant/victim despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State and Office Report dated 14.07.2025 as well as the order of this Court dated 16.07.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

¶8

Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Amendment 2015), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 811 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, under Sections- 69, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Maheshganj, District- Pratapgarh.

¶10

While pressing the present appeal, based upon the statements of victim recorded in terms of Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the informant/victim has levelleved allegations 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

¶11

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 .

¶12

It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 07.12.2024. 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶15

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 07.12.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶16

Order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Amendment 2015), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 811 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, under Sections- 69, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Maheshganj, District- Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the appellant- Kailash Yadav 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 :-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Arun/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Yadav 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

Dr. Om Prakash vs Sri Ravindra Kumar, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian, Mother Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Smt. Anara Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Rang Shukla vs Sri Umesh Chandra Diwedi, Secy. Gram Panchayat Bhithaura, Gonda and Another

Smt. Ram Dulari and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another