Amit Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134440

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3702 of 2025 Appellant :- Amit Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant-Amit Yadav to set aside the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Basti in Bail Application No.469 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2024, under Sections 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and 3 (2) (V) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Harraiya, District Basti and appellant may be released on bail.

¶6

Heard Mr. Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the victim lodged the FIR stating therein that she is aged about 21 years and belongs to Scheduled Caste. Victim studied up to B.A. It is further alleged that victim was having love affairs and talking with the appellant Amit Yadav for about 8 years. It is further alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant made physical relation with the victim.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. As per statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, she herself admitted that she is aged about 21 years and has stated that she was taking with the appellant for the last 8 years and even living with the appellant for the last four months and she has voluntarily made physical relation with the appellant. Further submission is that the appellant and the victim are ready to marriage with each other but the family member of the appellant is not ready. Further submission is that the victim herself has refused for her medical examination. Further submission is that as per statement of the

¶9

victim, the victim is a consenting party, therefore, no offence under Section 69 is made out against the appellant. Further submission is that essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 03.11.2024 having no previous criminal history. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶11

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.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, 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.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Amit Yadav, 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 8.8.2025

¶22

Ajeet

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Ashok vs State of U.P. and Another

Hriom Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Modanwal vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Yadav Alias Anuj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Malti Traders through Proprietor Malti Pandey vs Kishan Sonkar

Sintu Alias Balbir Singh vs State of U.P. and Another