Sumit Parihar vs State of U.P. and Another

Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for State.

¶12

As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal.

¶13

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 05.06.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jhansi, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2025, under Section 64(1), 333, 351(3), B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5, 3(2)5a, SC/ST Act, at Police Station Tahrauli, District Jhansi.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that content of FIR lodged by victim is itself sufficient to show that she was a consenting party and has lodged a false FIR against appellant. She has stated that the alleged incident of abduction and taking to Delhi had occurred on 21.1.2025, but FIR by means of filing an application under Section 173(4) was lodged after two months. Victim has stated that earlier also, she was raped by appellant on 8.3.2024 but she did not lodge any complaint out of fear. Even she has mentioned in FIR that appellant used to commit rape against her upon the pretext of marriage. It was submitted that the entire statement of victim mentioned in the FIR indicates that she out of ill will after relationship turned sour lodged this FIR. Hence, the appellant is entitled to bail.

¶15

CRLA No. 6632 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Learned AGA for State has opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for appellant and has submitted that victim has corroborated the content of FIR in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for bail.

¶18

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.

¶19

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 appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Let the appellant- Sumit Parihar involved in Case Crime No. 63 of 2025, under Section 64(1), 333, 351(3), B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5, 3(2)5a, SC/ST Act, at Police Station Tahrauli, District Jhansi , 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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

¶28

November 10, 2025 Mukesh

¶29

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sumit Parihar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Parihar 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

Manoj vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohtash vs State of U.P.

Sompal vs State of U.P. and Another

Puran Alias Puran Kasyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwandas Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubh Kumar Alias Shubham Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another