Kamran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mohammad Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶10

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad in Bail Application No. 711 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 352, 351(3) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(V) S.C/S.T Act, P.S. Rudauli, District - Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶11

Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 30.04.2025, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the victim/prosecutrix, aged about 30 years, a married lady having three children, is in habit of making allegations of rape.

¶12

In continuation, it is stated that the statement of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S would indicate that on one occasion, she lodged an F.I.R making allegation of rape against her father-in-law and also levelled allegations against her brother-in-law.

¶13

It is also stated that in the F.I.R in issue, i.e. F.I.R No. 0122 of 2025, subsequently, the prosecutrix/victim has levelled allegations of committing rape on 02.04.2025 against three persons namely Deepak, Kamran (appellant) and Sajid, therefore, the F.I.R was lodged under Sections 70(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S and Sections 3(2)(v) S.C/S.T Act was lodged. However, to corroborate/establish the allegation related to committing of rape, there is no medical evidence.

¶14

CRLA No. 1790 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

It is further submitted that the victim produced herself before the medical officer for medical examination on 19.04.2025, i.e. after huge delay, though according to the F.I.R in issue, the crime was committed on 02.04.2025, at about 12:00 Noon and this aspect of the story creates doubt on the story of the prosecution.

¶17

It is further stated that according to the case set up in F.I.R, it is a case of gang rape and a perusal of the medico-legal report indicates that the doctor, upon, examination, found no injury. Thus, it can also be inferred that it is a false case.

¶18

It is also stated that it appears that the F.I.R, in question, was lodged by the prosecutrix/victim, just to harass the appellant and others and to extract pecuniary benefit from the state exchequer.

¶19

Thus, indulgence of this Court is required and as such, the appellant, who is in jail since 19.04.2025, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶21

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., including the statement of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. 12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement of the prosecutrix/victim and her medical report and also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶22

Order dated 30.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad in Bail Application No. 711 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2025, under Sections 70(1), 352, 351(3) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(V) S.C/S.T Act, P.S. Rudauli, District - Faizabad/Ayodhya is set aside.

¶23

Let appellant Kamran , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶24

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

¶25

CRLA No. 1790 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(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./Section 351 BNSS.

¶34

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

¶35

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order.

¶36

September 11, 2025 DiVYa

¶37

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶38

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

Kamran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tushal Alias Vishal Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Sushila Nishad Thru. Her Husband Subhash Chandra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Santoshi Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

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

Vishal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Brijesh Harijan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another