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

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli on Bail Application No. 3673/2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 229 of 2025, under Sections 87/69 BNS & Section 3(2)V of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Maharajganj, District Raebareli rejecting bail to appellant.

¶14

As per contents of First Information Report, the appellant allegedly enticed away the daughter of informant, aged about 22 years.

¶15

Learned counsel for appellant submits that he has been falsely implicated on allegations levelled against him and a perusal of statement of alleged victim under Section 180 BNSS as well as under Section 183 BNSS clearly indicates consensual relationship. It is submitted that none of the ingredients of Section 3(2)V of Scheduled

¶16

CRLA No. 335 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are made out against appellant. It is submitted that appellant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 28.09.2025. It is further submitted that there is difference between establishing relationship on a false pretext of marriage and breach of promise.

¶19

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed appeal with the submission that statement of victim under Section 183 BNSS clearly indicates applicability of sections impugned against appellant. The aspect of coercion and deception in establishing relationship is clearly made out. It is however admitted that the appellant does not have any precious criminal history.

¶20

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, at this stage, without entering into the merits of case and subject to evidence in trial, it appears that in the F.I.R. only allegation levelled is enticing away the daughter of informant. It is admitted that alleged victim was aged about 22 years. There appears to be serious contradiction in the statements of alleged victim recorded under Sections 180/183 BNSS with an effort being made to improve the story. Nonetheless, at this stage, it appears that relations were consensual. The aspect of whether relations were established due to deception or due to breach of promise of marriage would require to be proved with evidence during the course of trial.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting on merits and subject to evidence, I am of the view that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 06.01.2026 is set aside.

¶23

Let appellant/applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount of Rs.20,000/- with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶24

CRLA No. 335 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(iii) The appellant/applicant 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iv) The appellant/applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶30

(v) The appellant/applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶31

(vi) In case, the appellant/applicant misuses the liberty of ball during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the appellant/applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶32

Pending applications if any too stand disposed of.

¶33

April 7, 2026 lakshman

¶34

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Wazeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wazeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Jai Prakash Yadav @ Dangar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Dharamveer Singh Rathore vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Lko. and 2 Others

Prabhakar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Lko. and 4 Others

Gudiya @ Gudiya Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Shailendra Pratap Singh @ Shailendra Pratap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ankush Kumar Raghav (S.S.I. , PNO-132260134) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others