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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34744

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 380 of 2025

Appellant :- Shajid Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mithila Bakhsh Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. for State. Although the name of Mr. Mithila Bakhsh Tiwari has been indicated in the cause list as learned counsel for opposite party No.2, he has not put in appearance.

¶8

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against bail rejection order dated 21st January 2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Barabanki rejecting the bail application No.231 of 2025 under Sections 376(2)(N), 354(a), 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act of P.S. Subeha, District Barabanki.

¶9

As per contents of F.I.R., allegation levelled is that the applicant raped the informant three years prior to lodging of F.I.R. and thereafter continued with physical relationship with her due to which the informant became pregnant twice but suffered miscarriage. It is also alleged that the appellant continued to exploit the informant physically on the false pretext of marriage. It is submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in the allegation levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that the informant herself is major, being 24 years of age and long physical relationship between the two clearly indicates consensual relationship. It is submitted that medical report does not corroborate allegations of any miscarriage or pregnancy thereby casting a doubt on the allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that examination in chief of informant as P.W.1 is underway while the appellant without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 7th January, 2025.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that the informant in her statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly corroborated the allegations levelled against the appellant. It is however admitted that the appellant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears that physical relations between the parties have continued for more than three years. The aspect of consensual relationship would be subject matter of trial with evidence. The medico legal report however at this stage does not appear to corroborate allegations levelled against the appellant who without previous criminal history is under incarceration since7th January, 2025.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for parties, without commenting upon merits, it appears that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of the above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly appeal is allowed and the order dated 21st January, 2025 is set aside.

¶13

Let appellant Shajid be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

(v) 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with

¶20

law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 prabhat

¶21

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

Shajid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Taufik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and

Ved Prakash Mishra vs the Registrar General High Court at Allahabad and Another

Noor Mohammad @ Raja vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shiv Shanker Dubey Alias Chunmun vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Maheep Kumar Ojha vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and Another