Mohammad Rais @ Rahees Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8437

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4086 of 2024

Appellant :- Mohammad Rais @ Rahees Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

List revised none appeared on behalf of the respondent even in the revised call except learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. for the State is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record.

¶9

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in second bail application no. 3844 of 2024 in case crime no. 366 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 420 of I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, (Mohd. Rais @ Rahees Vs. State of U.P.), lodged at Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case he is innocent and has committed no offence. The victim was major at the time of alleged incident and was consensuous. It is further submitted that when dispute arose between the parties she lodged the present F.I.R. with false allegations. The trial court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 06.11.2024, having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and have

¶13

gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the period of appellant remained in jail having no any criminal antecedent, the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., her age and consensuous and without making any further comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the appellant Mohammad Rais @ Rahees involved in Case Crime No. 366 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 420 of I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, (Mohd. Rais @ Rahees Vs. State of U.P.), lodged at Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki 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.

¶17

Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

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

¶21

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶22

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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 10.2.2025/ Suraj Srivastav

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Rais @ Rahees v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Rais @ Rahees 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

Mohammad Jamil @ Jameel vs Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another

Mohammad Jamil @ Jameel vs Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another

Rahat Ali vs State of Up and Another

Amir vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mursheed @ Mo. Murseed and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another