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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40545

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1931 of 2025

Appellant :- Ramteerath Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Shukla,Anand Kumar Pandey,Brijendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out. The respondent No. 2/complainant chose not to appear before this Court to oppose the instant appeal despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State and the order of this Court dated 09.07.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, this Court proceeded to hear the instant appeal, which relates to enlargement of appellant on bail, on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 1367 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 0165 of 2025, under Sections87, 137(2) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mohammadpur Khala, District- Barabanki.

¶9

While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. 0165/2025 dated 15.03.2025 lodged by the opposite party No. 2 at Police Station- Mohammadpur Khala, DistrictBarabanki making allegations therein so as attract the offences as indicated under Sections- 87, 137(2) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, the appellant/Ramteerath Yadav s/o Rajkishor enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years at the time of incident i.e. on 14.03.2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the allegations levelled in the FIR are completely incorrect and the same could be deduced from the statement of victim herself recorded in terms of Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S.

¶11

Based upon aforesaid statements of victim, it is further stated that the victim, who appears to be an adult/major lady, was in fact in love affair with the appellant and she accompanied the appellant to his maternal aunt's house on her own volition/free will and stayed there for one night and the appellant did not establish physical relations with her.

¶12

Further submission is that as per medical opinion, at the relevant point of time, the victim was aged about 17 years, which is the subject matter of trial and could be considered by the trial court based upon the evidence adduced before it in this regard and at this stage of bail, the benefit of various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 , shall be extended in favour of the appellant.

¶13

It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025. 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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, statement(s) of victim as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 24.04.2025 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 .

¶17

Order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 1367 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 0165 of 2025, under Sections- 87, 137(2) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mohammadpur Khala, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside.

¶18

Let the appellant- Ramteerath 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 :-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Arun/-

¶30

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramteerath 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

Jai Singh Vs State of U.P.

Salamtulla and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bilas and Another Vs State of U.P.

Satish Lodhi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Prem Kumar vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi, Dir. Horticulture and Food Processing, Lko. and Another

Rehana Fatima vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others