Lalji Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30682

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 355 of 2025 Appellant :- Lalji Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Pratap Singh,Jyoti Singh,Rudra Pratap Singh,Sumit Chauhan,Suresh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2, whereas notice has been served as per office report.

¶8

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 06.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T., (P.A.)Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 3359/2024 (Lalji Jaiswal vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 0280 of 2024, under Sections 376-D,504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police StationGosainganj, District- Sultanpur.

¶9

As per prosecution case, on 17.6.2024 at 8 p.m., while the complainant was alone in her house, the appellant with his friend Gulab Chandra Maurya came and called her and forcibly sat her on two wheeler motorcycle and took her to forest where Raman Verma and Anoop Prajapati were already present. The appellant, Gulab Chandra Maurya and Raman Verma committed rape with her by and by and Anoop Prajapati was looking so that no one may come. These people after committing bad work abused in the name of caste and asked that in case she

¶10

lodge any complaint, she will be killed. The F.I.R. to this effect was lodged on 12.7.2024 at Police Station Gosainganj, District Sultanpur against the applicant and three others at 17.20 hrs.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the co-accused person having similar role, namely, Gulab Chandra Maurya in Criminal Appeal No.3348 of 2024( Gulab Chandra Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and another) and Raman Verma in Criminal Appeal No. 3243 of 2024 ( Raman Verma Vs. State of U.P. and another) have been granted bail by this Court on 09.12.2024. Therefore the appellant is also entitled for bail. He further submits that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is repetition of the FIR, however, while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has made improvement. There is lack of corroborative medical evidence or any other material in support of the prosecution case. The FIR has been lodged after 25 days without any explanation. The victim is a married lady aged about 37 years. The applicantappellant has been falsely implicated. The applicantappellant has no criminal antecedents. The applicantappellant is languishing in jail since 16.08.2024. Without considering it, the court below has passed the impugned order.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant. He submits that the allegations against the appellant is of committing rape and not merely of guarding the accused persons while committing the offence. However it could not be considered in the aforesaid two cases whereas the role of the appellant,

¶13

Gulab Chandra Maurya and Raman Verma is of committing rape and he is the main accused. The role of guarding is of Aditya alias Anoop Prajapati, who has been enlarged on bail by order passed in Criminal Appeal No.2908 of 2024.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

¶15

The appellant is claiming parity with the two orders passed in aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.3348 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 3243 of 2024, but the appellant is not entitled for parity as the allegation of rape is against the appellant and he is the main accused on whose behest the crime has been committed. The allegation of committing rape and not merely of guarding the accused persons, while committing offence is on the appellant. However it could not be considered in the aforesaid two cases. This Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or error because there is specific allegations against the appellant of committing offence and the victim has supported in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also.

¶16

The appeal is misconceived and lacks merits.

¶17

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

The appellant may move fresh application for bail before the trial court after evidence of victim.

¶19

...................... ....... (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 dk/

¶21

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

Lalji Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalji Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Anand Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.Throu District Magistrate /Collector and Ors.

M/s U.P. Voluntary Health Association, Lucknow, through its Executive Director, Mr. Vivek Awasthi Vs Director, State Mission Directorate, Swachh Bharat Mission- Urban (Sbm-U)

Bitoli Devi and Ors. Vs Competent Authority / District Land Acqusition Officer, Lakhimpur- Kheri and Ors.

Gyanesh Kumar Dikshit vs M. Devaraj, Principal Secretary to Govt. of U.P., (Acting As Addl. Chief Secy., State Tax, Lucknow)

Kamla Devi and Another vs Molhe

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Manager vs Laxmi and Others