Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10064

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4088 of 2024

Appellant :- Naseem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamal Kishor Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

It is evident from the record that notice is already served on private respondent, but none appears on his behalf. Therefore, this appeal is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

¶8

The instant appeal has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶9

"To quash the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 2901 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 337 of 2024, u/s 64 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Raebareli."

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that informant of the present case and other family members are working as agricultural labourers with Deepak Tiwari. One F.I.R. was lodged against Deepak Tiwari for abduction from the side of the appellant, in which, the informant of the present case was instrumental, thereafter, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged. During the course of the investigation, the victim's statement was recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S., in which, she stated that the appellant tried to molest her and tore her clothes, but she ran away and narrated the incident to her aunt. Specific question was asked from the Investigating Officer that if the appellant commit any wrong with the victim, in response, she categorically denied. Thereafter, her statement was also recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., in which, she developed a case of rape and she also refused her medico legal examination.

¶11

It is next submitted that the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. The appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedent, is in jail since 01.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate in the trial. All these materials were not considered by learned trial Court in the

¶12

correct perspective, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by setting aside the order passed by learned trial Court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the victim has categorically supported the prosecution story in her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. However, he does not dispute the fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S. and she also denied her medico legal examination.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the appeal as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that in the victim's statement recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S., she denied any allegation of rape, but thereafter, in her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., she denied her version and made allegation of rape; she also denied her medico legal examination. As all these materials were not considered by the trial Court at the time of deciding the bail application of the appellant, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

¶15

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed . The order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 2901 of 2024 is hereby set aside.

¶16

Let the appellant- Naseem involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶20

and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant 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 law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶22

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Arpan

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseem 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

Zehra Khan Thru. Her Next Friend Shamim Khan @ Mohammad Shamim Khan (Father) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Manohar Tripathi vs Sri Anil Kumar-Iii, I.a.S, Addl. Chief Secy. Panchyati Raj Deptt. Lko.

Avadhesh Singh @ Sipahi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Mukesh Prasad Gupta vs Vishak G, Distt Magistrate, Lko.

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

Kartik Thru. His Mother Smt. Anshika Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others