Sachin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144484

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4321 of 2025

Appellant :- Sachin Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

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 bail rejection order dated 25.04.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act, Court No.2, Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime No.70 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 131, 352, 351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chaubepur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

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.

¶8

According to the prosecution case, the appellant enticed away the daughter of the informant, who is aged about 16 years. It is further alleged that when the informant went to the house of the appellant Sachin, the appellant's brother Shivam and his sister-inlaw, abused and pushed the informant and also threatened to kill him.

¶9

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 impugned FIR is highly delayed about 16 days for which no plausible explanation has been mentioned. As per statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, there are material contradictions in her statement and the victim has admitted that she went with the appellant out of her own sweet will but appellant has nothing wrong with her, therefore, no offence under aforesaid sections is made out against the appellant. Further submission is that no any medical report is supported the prosecution story. Essential

¶10

ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 14.03.2025 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.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the appellant- Sachin, 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶21

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.

¶22