Anuj Yadav Alias Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134492

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5171 of 2025

Appellant :- Anuj Yadav Alias Anuj Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Parth Goswami, Rajeev Goswami 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-Anuj Yadav Alias Anuj Kumar to set aside the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Firozabad in Bail Application No.1610 of 2025 and supplementary bail application no.1785 of 2025 (Anuj Yadav @ Anuj Kumar vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime NO.215 of 2025, under Sections 69, 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Ramgarh, District Firozabad and may be released the appellant on bail.

¶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

As per prosecution story, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the victim stating therein that she is aged about 21 years and belongs to caste 'Diwakar' and is a student of B.Sc. It is further alleged that appellant Anuj Yadav trapped the victim in his love and made physical relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that on 22.11.2024 when the family members of the victim were busy in the marriage of victim's sister, the appellant took the victim in a room where he has committed rape with the victim.

¶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. Appellant never abused and misused his acquaintance with the victim in any manner even nothing incriminating article was found from the possession of the appellant or in his mobile. Further submission is that as per version

¶10

of the FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 22.11.2024 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 13.04.2025 for which no plausible explanation has been mentioned. Further submission is that the victim herself has refused for her medical examination. Further submission is that as per statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the victim is a consenting party, therefore, no offence under Section 69 B.N.S. is made out against the appellant. Further submission is that essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are also lacking in the matter. Appellant is languishing in jail since 17.04.2025 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. opposing the prayer for bail has submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶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- Anuj Yadav Alias Anuj Kumar, 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 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 8.8.2025

¶23

Ajeet

¶24

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

Anuj Yadav Alias Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Yadav Alias Anuj Kumar 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