Vimal vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144509

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1887 of 2025

Appellant :- Vimal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today, taken on record.

¶7

In this case notice has already been served upon the informant.

¶8

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Vimal to set aside the order dated 24.10.2024 in Bail Application No. 6613 of 24 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No.296 of 2015, under Sections 377, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Mawana, District Meerut.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record.

¶10

According to the prosecution case, the FIR of the incident has been lodged on the same day of the incident stating therein that on the way appellant met her and forcefully taken away in sugarcane field and raped her and also threatened her for dire consequences. and also he has snatched her mobile phone.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. At the time of incident the victim has not made any noise for her rescue and also there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. According to medical examination report no injury found on the body of the victim. The applicant has no criminal history he is jail since 02.09.2024. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from

¶12

infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail had have submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶14

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.

¶15

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the appellant- Vimal involved in aforesaid case crime number 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

before this Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.8.2025 RPD

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vimal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal v. State of U.P. 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

Lal Bahadur vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Yashwant Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrabhan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Shankar vs State of U.P. and Another

Akankshi Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Parik vs State of U.P. and Another