Vivek Mishra @ Vivek Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as Sri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

¶13

By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in second Bail Application No. 2528 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2025 under Sections 333, 351(2), 64, 352 BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)(r), 3(2)(s), 3(2)(w), 3(2)V-A, 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Kotwali Dehat, District-Pratapgarh.

¶14

It is stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be inferred that the relationship if any between appellant and victim was consensual and when the family members of the victim came to know about the said relationship, she under the pressure of her family members, lodged the FIR in issue.

¶15

Further stated that the allegations of committing rape levelled in the FIR, the basis of criminal proceedings and incarceration of appellant, lodged on 21.04.2025, in the midnight of 20/21.04.2025 against the appellant are completely false. In continuation, it is stated that the crime in issue as alleged was committed by the appellant in the house of the victim that too in front of her children and also in the presence of other family members as

¶16

CRLA No. 2534 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

FIR indicates that upon hue and cry of the victim, the mother-in-law of the victim came at the spot.

¶19

It is also stated there is no mention in the FIR that as to how the appellant came to know about the fact that the back door of the house of the victim was opened in the midnight of 20.04.2025.

¶20

Further stated that in fact the allegations against the appellant have been levelled just to extract the money from State-exchequer or in Village party bandi by the victim, aged about 26 years, who is a married lady.

¶21

Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant, who is in jail since 22.04.2025, is entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. and also Sri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶23

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., medical report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

¶24

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) of the victim as 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 .

¶25

The impugned order dated 11.07.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in second Bail Application No. 2528 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2025 under Sections 333, 351(2), 64, 352 BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)(r), 3(2)(s), 3(2)(w), 3(2)V-A, 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.Kotwali Dehat, District-Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside.

¶26

Let appellant - Vivek Mishra @ Vivek Kumar Mishra 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 :-

¶27

CRLA No. 2534 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(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.

¶37

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.

¶38

September 23, 2025 Vinay/-

¶39

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶40

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

Vivek Mishra @ Vivek Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Mishra @ Vivek Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Juggi Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addit. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Pramod Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mr. X (Minor) Thru. His Natural Guardian/Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Rasheed vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Juvenile Delinquent X Being Minor Respresented Thru. Natural Guardian His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother in Case Cr. No. 291/2024 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another