Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against rejection of bail for gang rape charges under BNS and the SC/ST Act. As appellant's case mirrored that of co-accused Pappu Maurya already released on bail, court set aside bail rejection and enlarged appellant on bail with standard conduct conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 670 of 2025
Ashish Kumar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Uttam Kumar Awasthi
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Uttam Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 121 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 87, 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi.
Vide order dated 08.09.2025, this Court allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 1702 of 2025 filed by co-accused Pappu Maurya and enlarged the coaccused on bail. The copy of the order placed before this Court is taken on record. Trelevant portion of the order referred reads as under:
"4. It is further stated that statement of the victim was recorded after being recovered by the Investigating Officer on 27.09.2024 and thereafter the statement was recorded by concerned Magistrate in terms of section 183 BNSS wherein the victim levelled allegations related to establishing physical relation with her against her wishes against appellant-Pappu Maurya, Ashish and Golu and therefore, the Section 70(1) BNS which relates to gang rape was added.
5. It is also stated that the statements were given by the victim under the pressure of opposite party no. 2 and therefore, she is not a sterling and this aspect of the case can be inferred from the fact that to corroborate the offence under Section 70(1) BNS the prosecution has having no medical evidence. In this regard, reference has been made to medicolegal report, according to which, no injury was found over the body of the deceased external or internal.
6. It is further submitted that victim, an adult, was having relationship and on her own volition, left her house could also be interfered and
CRLA No. 670 of 2025
2
deduced from the Annexure No. 8, which is also a medical report of the victim according to which the pregnancy was found positive.
7. It is also stated that the appellant has been falsely implicated only being the friend of co-accused Golu with whom the victim was in affair and the same is evident from the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS according to which the victim and the co-accused Golu were in contact for a period of about two years prior to lodging of FIR against unknown person.
8. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 30.01.2025 and has no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
9. Learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Uttar Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.
10. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses including the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS.
11. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the medical opinion and the age of the victim and her statements which prima facie indicate that victim was in touch/contact of co-accused Golu as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.
12. Order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 336 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi is set aside.
13. Let appellant- Pappu Maurya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on"
Taking note of the aforesaid as also the fact of the present case, this Court finds that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the co-accused Pappu Maurya, who has been released on bail, as also the fact that the appellant has no criminal history and he has been languishing in jail since 18.01.2025, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 121 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 87, 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Mallawan, District - Hardoi is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed .
Let appellant, Ashish Kumar 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 :-
CRLA No. 670 of 2025
3
(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(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.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(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.
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.
September 19, 2025 Mohit Singh/-
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act given parity with co-accused Pappu Maurya already enlarged on bail by this Court.
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Ashish Kumar
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Uttam Kumar Awasthi (Respondent No. 2)
Saurabh Lavania
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
