Rachit Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110031

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2001 of 2025

Appellant :- Rachit Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Compliance affidavit filed today by the learned AGA mentioning therein that notice upon the opposite party no.2/ informant - prosecutrix has been served through whatsapp is taken on record.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant - Rachit Yadav to set aside the bail rejection order dated 28.2.2025 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under sections 376, 313, 323, 504 IPC and 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), (dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Garautha, District Jhansi.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the opposite party no.2.

¶9

The prosecution has come forward with a case that on the false pretext of marriage, the present appellant made and developed physical relations with the major victim for long time and he also took her with him at Vadodara and as a result of the physical relation she got pregnancy which was terminated twice by the appellant and on his persuasion she also lost a huge amount of money to the friends of the appellant and subsequently when she insisted for marriage, he refused and also hurled abuses to her by caste related remarks and physically assaulted her. F.I.R. was lodged on 14.9.2024 and after investigation now charge sheet has been submitted.

¶10

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 not committed the present offence. It is also submitted that

¶11

the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. It is also submitted that the entire prosecution story is based on false and concocted facts. The facts mentioned in the F.I.R. are totally false. The present appellant had no relation with the victim of this case and he never got her pregnancy terminated. It is also submitted that according to the F.I.R. the physical exploitation of the victim started in the year 2023 whereas F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2024. After lodging the F.I.R. when the police took her for physical examination, she refused on 1.10.2024, however, subsequently on 14.10.2024 she was physically examined but no injury was found. It is also submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC she has made some contradictory statements which creates doubt about the veracity of this case. The appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that the trial court 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. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2024. It is submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix of this case has been physically exploited by the present appellant for a long period of time and she also got pregnancy, which was terminated by the appellant. The I.O. has collected sufficient evidence against the appellant during course of investigation. The offence committed by the appellant is very serious. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶13

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.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the fact that no sign of force is found in the medical report of the prosecutrix, delay in lodging the F.I.R., no plausible explanation given by the victim herself as to how and why she continued physical relations with the appellant when he was avoiding marriage with her, clean criminal record and detention

¶15

period of the appellant, 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 set-aside.

¶17

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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 before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 safi

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rachit Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachit Yadav 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

Kamini vs State of U.P. and Another

Paljhan vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rohit Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lal Ji vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sriyansh Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav vs State of U.P. and Another