Mohd. Javed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 4071 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 972 of 2024, under Sections - 87, 64(2)(m), 127(3), 351(3), 308(2), 294(2)(A) BNS, Section 67 of IT Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Fatehpur, District- Barabanki.

¶10

While pressing the present appeal counsel for the appellant submits that if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value then in that event the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110 .

¶11

In continuation, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who is in jail since 04.12.2024 and has no criminal

¶12

history, has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the entire story against the appellant, indicated by the victim and that the appellant established physical relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage is false and concocted.

¶13

The F.I.R. lodged on 25.11.2024, is completely false and concocted and if it is true then it is a case of consent as the victim was major and accordingly it can be deduced that the physical relations were established by the appellant with the victim with her consent and for some reasons, their relationship could not continue.

¶14

He further submitted that the chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case are extremely bleak in view of the law related to establishing relationship on the pretext of false promise of marriage.

¶15

He also stated that as per the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC (now repealed), the allegation should be to the effect that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry and from the F.I.R., it reflects that the said contents in its true spirit are missing.

¶16

He lastly submitted that all the aforesaid aspects of the case were not considered by the trial court, as such, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Amrit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contention of counsel for the appellant.

¶18

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant

¶19

documents placed on record.

¶20

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 04.12.2024 and has no criminal history as also the submissions regarding physical relations as also the chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶21

Order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 4071 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 972 of 2024, under Sections - 87, 64(2)(m), 127(3), 351(3), 308(2), 294(2)(A) BNS, Section 67 of IT Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police StationFatehpur, District- Barabanki, is hereby set aside.

¶22

Let appellant- Mohd. Javed, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶26

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(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.

¶32

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶33

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order.

¶34

Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Javed v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Javed v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anchal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 10 Others

Tribhuwan Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Zahida Khatoon Vs Civil Judge (J.D) Ftc Women Atrocities Bahraich and 7 Others

Krishan Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Abhai Kumar Khandelwal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Gaurav Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another