Golu vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1785

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7180 of 2024 Appellant :- Golu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Jyoti Kumar Singh, Vishakha Pande,G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Golu against the bail rejection order dated 24.5.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in case crime no. 186 of 2024 under Sections 452, 376, 506 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Siana, District- Bulandshahar.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record.

¶7

The prosecution has come forward with the story that on 4.5.2024 in the night at 11.00 pm the accused appellant entered into the house of the victim and forcibly committed rape with her by threatening her but however, she was caught on spot by the mother-in-law and brother-in-law (jeth) of the prosecutrix. The police was informed and the accused appellant was also handed over to the police.

¶8

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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out from the perusal of the record. It is also submitted that the victim is a major lady, the appellant and the victim have been in intimate relation and some photographs and videos were also prepared for the same. Since it was a case of consensual relation, no offence was committed by the accused appellant, who himself is a major and bachelor person. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 5.5.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant

¶9

suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and it has been submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 24.5.2024. It has been vehemently submitted that only to fulfill his lust the present accused appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix by house breaking in the night and all the further story of catching hold the accused and to hand over him to police is not false and the presence of the appellant in the house of the prosecutrix in the night itself proves the offensive attitude of the appellant. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made.

¶11

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.

¶12

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and also taking into the account the fact that the victim is a major lady and the rape was committed with her in the absence of her husband and she corroborates the prosecution version in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which consists of some minor contradictions from her own statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also considering the FSL report, which is available on record, the offence in my view is very grave and serious and the accused appellant is not entitled for any relief by this Court. The Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 6.1.2025//Fhd

¶15

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Golu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golu 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

Prem shankar Tiwari and 3 Ors. vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit vs State of U.P. and Another

Harsh vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu vs State of Up Others

Rijwana Bano vs State of U.P. and Another