Allowed

Mukesh Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2025CRLA/95/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail for an accused in a rape-related FIR. Court found the relationship appeared consensual and held the appellant had made out a case for bail; appeal allowed and bail granted on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions; bail-rejection order set aside.

Mukesh Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8303

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 95 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Mukesh Sahu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amitabh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Objection filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Unnao.

¶8

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

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Victim was married lady whose husband was working at Delhi. In the meantime, relation developed with the appellant and both of them enjoyed the company of each other. There was conversation on mobile phone for long duration which shows that she was consensus and when this fact came into the knowledge of her husband, present F.I.R. was lodged with false allegation, therefore, case cannot be said to come under the definition of rape. The Court below 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 12.11.2024. 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.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶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

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

¶13

keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and fact that she was consensus, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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 set-aside.

¶15

Let the appellant Mukesh Sahu involved in Case Crime No. 421 of 2024, under Sections 64, 115(2), 333, 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Maurawan, District Unnao 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.

¶16

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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

¶19

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

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

Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Anurag Singh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Jamil @ Jameel vs Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another

Mohammad Jamil @ Jameel vs Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another

Rahat Ali vs State of Up and Another

Amir vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajeej vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Mursheed @ Mo. Murseed and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another