Shahrukh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10475

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7633 of 2024

Appellant :- Shahrukh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Shahrukh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

The younger major sister of the informant left house on 19.4.2018 at 11.00 am informing the family members that she was going to bank but it came to the knowledge of the informant Yogendra Kumar @ Raju that she was enticed away by the present accused appellant and she was seen by his brother Guddu and other village persons. FIR was lodged under Section 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and now charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant additionally adding Section 3 (1) Dha SC/ST Act against him.

¶9

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 the prosecutrix in this case is a major lady and it is a case of consensual relationship. It is further submitted that the appellant and the prosecutrix have married with each other and she was living happily with the appellant and out of their wedlock a son was also born. It is further submitted that no statement of the victim under Section 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and despite that charge sheet was submitted on flimsy ground by the I.O. The

¶10

cognizance order was also challenged by way of Criminal Appeal No. 7092 of 2022 and the matter was remanded by this Court to pass a fresh cognizance order in this case. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that during investigation the appellant was absconding and after issuance of process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. an FIR under Section 174-A I.P.C. was lodged. 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 30.6.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail 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 22.7.2024.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 and also keeping in view that the victim of this case is a major lady and as per statement by the appellant on oath both have got married and the victim is living happily with her husband/ the appellant having one child.the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the appellant - Shahrukh involved in Sessions Case No. 1597 of 2021, case crime no. 451 of 2018 under Sections 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Bhoganipur, District Kanpur Dehat be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

It is clarified that the present order shall make no effect upon the proceedings against the appellant under Section 174A I.P.C.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Fhd

¶24

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

Shahrukh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh 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