Thakur Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137965

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4117 of 2025

Appellant :- Thakur Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.01 of 2025

¶7

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶8

This is second bail application of the appellant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10788 of 2023, copy of order has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the appeal.

¶9

Heard 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.

¶10

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Special Judge ( SC/ST Act) gorakhpur passed in Second Bail Application No.1695 of 2025 (Thakur Yadav vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.164 of 2023, under Sections 452, 354, 323, 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)5 (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Harpur Budahat, District Gorakhpur.

¶11

There is an allegation against the appellant that on 22.07.2023 at around 2.00-3.00 pm the appellant committed obscene activities with the daughter of the informant and locked her with him and closed the door from inside. When the daughter of the informant raised alarm some ladies of the village came there and rescued her.

¶12

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. The appellant is aged about 60 years

¶13

having two daughters and he has falsely implicated due to village party bandi. Further submission is that there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that appellant has not committed such act as mentioned in the impugned FIR and she has given the statement under the pressure. Victim is aged about 25 years. No any medical report is supported the prosecution story. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 21.08.2023 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Let the appellant- Thakur 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Ajeet

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur 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

Azad Ansari vs State of U.P.

Gagan vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Reetu Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vijay Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kallu vs State of U.P. and Another