Allowed

Basant @ Basanth v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025CRLA/8023/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail in an SC/ST Act case involving molestation and threats. Considering the nature of the offence, evidence and complicity, the High Court found a case for bail, set aside the rejection order and released the appellant on bail with conditions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Basant @ Basanth vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8023 of 2025

¶3

Basant @ Basanth

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.	....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Archna Singh Pandey	Jadaun,	Santosh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for appellant, Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

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 a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Moradabad in Bail Application No.2834 of 2025 in S.S.T. No. 1288/2025, and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.332 of 2025, under Section 331(4), 351(3), 64(1) Β.N.S.-2023 & 3(1)Ba(1), 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Katghar, District-Moradabad.

¶9

Informant Bhagwati lodged an FIR stating therein that appellant came into her house in the night of 30.3.2025 and started molesting her daughter. He also threatened her daughter that he will kill if she discloses the incident to anybody else.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the parties were consenting parties and the first information report in this case was lodged after a delay of three months. Statement of victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS is sufficient to demonstrate the relationship between the appellant and victim. Victim has stated that she did not raise any alarm after appellant forcibly entered the house. She has also stated that her marriage was performed against her wish. She has stated that the

¶11

CRLA No. 8023 of 2025

¶12

¶13

appellant and victim were in contact with each for past one year. She has also blamed the appellant for the divorce between the victim and her husband. The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the victim only because relationship between them resulted into matrimonial discorded between the victim and her husband. He has not committed any offence. It was submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the respondent-informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that statement of victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS also demonstrates that she was threatened by the appellant on knife point. Even it has been mentioned in the FIR that appellant had threatened to kill the victim if she discloses the incident to anybody else. Said fact demonstrates that the FIR was not lodged promptly out of the fear from the appellant. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to bail.

¶15

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

¶16

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶18

Let the appellant- Basant @ Basanth involved in the aforesaid case 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.

¶19

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

¶20

CRLA No. 8023 of 2025

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶28

November 19, 2025 SK

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Basant @ Basanth v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Basant @ Basanth v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raju vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Gulafsha vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Varsha Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Singh Bhadauriya Alias Shashank Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Manju Lata and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Toofan Raja vs State of U.P. and Another