Shoeb Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21732

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3244 of 2024

Appellant :- Shoeb Ansari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Kumar Sinha,Ashok Kumar Verma,Rijuta Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA. None appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 despite served personally as per office report. Learned A.G.A. has also annexed the report of service on respondent no.2 alongwith his counter affidavit.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T.Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kehri in Bail Application No. 330 of 2024 (Shoeb Ansari vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.0462 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87 B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Gola, DistrictLakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas he is innocent. The First Information Report has been lodged by the mother of the victim i.e. respondent no.2, whereas the victim has stated in her statement under Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS that she is of 18 years age. She is in love with the appellant. She had gone with the appellant out of her own sweet will and volition to Shahjahanpur from where they had gone to Delhi. On information given by the brother of the appellant of F.I.R., they

¶9

were coming back to Gola, when the police arrested them. She had gone on her sweet will and the appellant had not instigated or forced her. The appellant has not done wrong with her. She has also stated that her mother has falsely lodged the First Information Report. She is giving her statement with her own will and nobody has threatened her. Thus the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the victim has not supported the prosecution version. It has further been submitted that the victim and her mother have denied to get the medical examination of the victim done. The charge sheet has been filed by the police without considering the aforesaid statement and facts disclosed in the said First Information Report. He further submits that the appellant has no criminal history, but without considering the aforesaid facts the impugned order has been passed by the court below while rejecting the bail application. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty granted by this court and undertakes to assist the concerned court in early disposal of the trial.

¶10

Learned AGA opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. However he could not contradict that the victim has not supported the case under Section 180 and 183 BNS, 2023 and has also denied to get the medical examination conducted.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records and the fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution version and she has also denied for medical examination and the mother of the victim, who has lodged the First Information Report has also denied to get the medical examination of the victim done, this court is of the view that the court below has passed the impugned order

¶12

without considering the same, which is liable to be set aside and the case for bail of the appellant is made out.

¶13

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed . The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Shoeb Ansari involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶17

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶19

framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶20

(v) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

..................................................... (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Banswar

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shoeb Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoeb Ansari 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

Ram Subhash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. and Another

Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. D.M. Gonda and Ors.

Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru-D.M. Gonda and Ors.

Shikha Yadav Thru. Her Husband Arjun Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Katayani Pandey and 2 Others, Thru. Their Mother Pooja Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shubham Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another