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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38737

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 440 of 2025

Appellant :- Deepak Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta,Shubham Chaurasiya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

As per office report dated 03.03.2025, which is based upon the letter of CJM Sitapur dated 01.03.2025, the service upon respondent no. 2, is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to oppose the present appeal. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds hear the instant appeal.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the records.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 17.09.2024 whereby the trial court rejected the bail application of the appellant registered as Bail Application (CIS No. 2962 of 2024) No. 724/2024 arising out of FIR No. 47 of 2024 under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506 IPC & 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, charges sheeted under Section 354, 323, 506, 376, 458 IPC and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Machhrehta DistrictSitapur.

¶9

While pressing the present appeal, challenging the order dated 17.09.2024 whereby the application of the appellant seeking bail was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur, it is stated that appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The implication is on account of village enmity.

¶10

In continuation it is stated that according to the case set up in the FIR and the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the appellant entered into the matrimonial home of victim, mother of six year old female child and one year old male child, and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim and on alarm being raised, the mother-in-law appeared and the appellant fled away from the place of alleged crime.

¶11

It is further stated that in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the story was changed and according to this statement the appellant entered into the matrimonial home of the victim and slept there and when he touched the victim, she raised alarm then the appellant gagged her and committed rape and the mother-in-law who was also sleeping near to the victim woke up and therefore the appellant fled away. Thus, the story of the prosecution is not intact.

¶12

It is further submitted that medical opinion(s) also does not support the story of the prosecution, which includes the supplementary report, as no injury was found on the body of the victim.

¶13

Further submission is that the Forensic Science Laboratory report has not been received till date, which also show the innocence of the appellant.

¶14

He further submitted that taking note of aforesaid as also that the appellant is in jail since 08.06.2024 and criminal history has been explained in paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit and also that possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant be released on bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant.

¶16

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., statements of the victim as well as other relevant documents as also the medical report, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶17

Order dated 17.09.2024 whereby the trial court rejected the bail application of the appellant registered as Bail Application (CIS No. 2962 of 2024) No. 724/2024 arising out of FIR No. 47 of 2024 under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506 IPC & 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, charges sheeted under Section 354, 323, 506, 376, 458 IPC and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Machhrehta District- Sitapur, is hereby set aside.

¶18

Let appellant, Deepak, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶19

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall not commit any offence.

¶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

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

¶25

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶26

(viii) 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.

¶27

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶28

Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Jyoti/-

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak 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

Ms. Riya Patwa Thru. Her Next Friend Ashish Yagyasaini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Pramila Devi @ Urmila Devi Thru. Her Husband Maneesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Mohni Thru. Her Husband Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Siyaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Xyz/ Informant of the Case Crime No. 10/2023 Thru. I.O./S.H.O. P.S. Dhammaur, Distt. Sultanpur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy Home Lko. and Another

Marook Ahmad @ Raja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another