Aryan Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6105

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2008 of 2024

Appellant :- Aryan Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kishan Sharma,Vineet Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Chaurasia

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant, is taken on record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant- Aryan Gupta with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Incharge Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur.

¶9

Heard Shri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Pradeep Chaurasia, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. Complainant/victim is also present before this Court personally and this Court has heard herself.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution. The victim was major and consensus and physical relations were established between the appellant and victim and now they have entered into marriage and got the marriage registered with the Marriage Registration Officer, Sitapur on 02.01.2025.

¶11

It is further submitted that the appellant remained in jail for a period of one year and was released on interim bail by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2024 to get the marriage registered and the aforesaid order was passed in presence of the victim herself. In pursuance there of both of them are entered into marriage and, therefore, he be released him on bail. It is next submitted that learned Special 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. Appellant is in jail since 22.10.2023. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 rejecting

¶12

the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/complainant/victim as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submit that though, there was an affair between both the parties and now they have entered into marriage and it has been registered as aforesaid with the consent of both the parties, but now the appellant is not ready to take her to his house, therefore, he be directed to take her with him and keep her amicably. On this, the appellant undertakes to keep her happily and not to misbehave in future.

¶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, which shows that both the parties have entered into marriage and it has been registered with the competent authority. The victim herself is not willing to let her husband into jail.

¶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, severity of punishment, the marriage between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶16

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur dated 17.05.2024 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶17

Let the appellant- Aryan Gupta involved in Case Crime No. 397 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376, 313 IPC and Section 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur 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

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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

It is also made clear that in case the appellant makes ill treatment with the victim, the complainant may have an opportunity to approach before the appropriate Court.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 29.1.2025

¶26

Praveen

¶27

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

Aryan Gupta v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryan Gupta v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Madhuri Patel Vs Addl. Chief Judicail Magistrate, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Mamta Thru. Her Husband Viresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Deepu vs State of U.P, Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Faiz Mohd. and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P.