Komal Rajput vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35224

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 465 of 2025

Appellant :- Komal Rajput Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lakshman Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Despite service of notice, none is present for the informant / opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Komal Rajput with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Addl. Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in Bail Application No.122 of 2024 (Komal Rajput Vs. State of U.P. and another) and release the appellant on bail in Case Case No.155 of 2024 under Sections 137 (2), 87 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sirsakalar, District Jalaun.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶9

The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the minor daughter of the informant was missing from the afternoon of 24.9.2024 and the named F.I.R. was lodged against the accused appellant under Sections 137 (2), 87 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 with the allegation that he had enticed away the minor victim. However, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the matter.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the whole prosecution story is based on false facts and only on the ground of village animosity, the appellant has been roped in this case. It is further submitted that the victim of this case never went with the appellant and in her statement recorded under sections 180 and

¶11

183 B.N.S.S. she has not corroborated the prosecution story. It is also submitted that in her statement under section 183 B.N.S.S. she has specifically averred that she had some quarrel with her own mother and in a state of anger and anguish, she left away her home and went to Delhi, stayed there for a few hours and came back by bus on her own and nothing wrong was committed with her by any person. It is also submitted that the appellant has no concern with the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record in right perspective and bail application was rejected in a cursory manner. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2024. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposing the appeal but however could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that in her statement recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S. the prosecutrix of this case has not made allegation against the present appellant.

¶13

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.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the appellant Komal Rajput involved in Case Case No.155 of 2024 under Sections 137 (2), 87 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sirsakalar, District Jalaun, 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 ss

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Komal Rajput v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal Rajput 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

Arpit vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitendra Kumar @ Neetu vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Shubham Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Pushpa Verma vs State of U.P. and 4 Others