Rikkhiram Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41341

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 74 of 2025

Appellant :- Rikkhiram Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out. As per office reported dated 03.05.2025, notice has been served upon opposite party No.2, however, when the case is called out no one has appeared to oppose the appeal. Learned AGA is present in the Court.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.3321 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.224 of 2024, under Sections - 64(2) M, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(V), 3 (2) (V a) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Maheshganj, District - Pratapgarh.

¶9

While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case and the story of the prosecution is completely false and concocted, which can be deduced from the age of the victim and the age of the appellant indicated in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the appellant has been implicated in the case on account of village partybandi. It is also submitted that if the story of the prosecution is taken on its face value, then it is a case of consensual relationship, although not correct.

¶10

It is also submitted that the medical examination report does not support the case of the prosecution as no injury was found by the doctor concerned upon due medical examination of the victim. In these circumstances, the appellant, who has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 27.10.2024, is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶12

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents.

¶13

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances and 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.

¶14

Order dated 18.11.2024, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.3321 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.224 of 2024, under Sections - 64 (2) M, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(V), 3 (2) (V a) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Maheshganj, District - Pratapgarh. is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant - Rikkhiram Maurya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶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

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

¶22

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

¶23

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶24

trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 18.7.2025

¶28

ML/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rikkhiram Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rikkhiram Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 4 Others

Rohit and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner, Lko Division, Lko. and 6 Others

Siraj Hussain Vs Board of Revenue Thru. Chairman, Lucknow, U.P. and Others

Fakire Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Kanhaiya Lal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur and Others

Maqsood Alam Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others