Gopal Paswan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

The instant criminal Appeal under section 374 (2) Cr. P.C. (now Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023) against the impugned judgment and order dated 25/26.11.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (C.A.W/ F.T.C.-I), Ambedkar Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.164 of 2010; State of U.P. Versus Gopal Paswan, arising out of Case Crime no.609 of 2010, relating to the Police Station-Ahirauli, District- Ambedkar Nagar, whereby convicted and sentenced the appellant under section- 366 I.P.C. for five years' imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further two months' rigorous imprisonment and under section- 376 (1) I.P.C. for ten years' imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine further six months' rigorous imprisonment; all the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, according to the prosecution version, the informant, who is the father of the victim, lodged an FIR on the basis of written report on 25.06.2010 at 6:30 hrs at the Police Station concerned stating that in the intervening night of 12/13.05.2010 his daughter got missing from home. He came to know that

¶15

CRLA No. 3971 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

the accused, Gopal Paswan, son of Ramji had enticed her away by calling her through her mobile number. He he had already lodged a missing report on 25.05. 2010, stating that his daughter was a minor, and her date of birth is 28.08.1992.

¶18

He next submitted that the victim was allegedly recovered on the date of lodging of the FIR, i.e. 25.06.2010 at 15:00 hrs, along with the appellant. They were seen at Annawa trisection, both traveling by Bolero Jeep. The arrest of the accused appellant is shown on 25.06.2010, at 3.00 p.m. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, and the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 29.06.2010 before the Magistrate wherein she had stated that she was called by the co-accused, Suresh Kumar Singh, in the intervening night of 12/13.05. 2010 at the Rice Mill, who detained her and committed rape on her. The same night he took her to Lucknow and stayed with her in a hotel. He took her to Gorakhpur and forcibly got her married with Gopal Paswan against her will. Both the accused, Suresh Kumar Singh and Gopal Paswan, committed rape on her. She stayed with the appellant for one and a half months, and during that period, the co-accused, Suresh Kumar Singh, also visited and committed rape on her. On 25.06.2010, she was being brought to Ambedkar Nagar where the police caught her on way and Gopal Paswan was also arrested at the same place.

¶19

He next submitted that the police has charge-sheeted the accused for the alleged offense. The accused, Suresh Kumar Singh, was summoned under Section 319 CrPC by the trial court on the basis of the statement of the victim before the court as well as on the basis of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Both of them were subsequently tried jointly, convicted, and sentenced in the aforesaid manner. He also submitted that the learned trial court has held the victim was aged above 18 years on the date of the incident mentioned in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment.

¶20

He further submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been in jail custody since 25.11.2024. He was also in jail custody during trial before being released on bail by the orders of this court. The victim allegedly traveled from Ambedkar Nagar to Lucknow

¶21

CRLA No. 3971 of 2024

¶22

3

¶23

and Gorakhpur and remained with the appellant for one and a half months. During this period, she never raised any alarm or sought help from any person or made any allegation against the appellant which itself shows that she was a consenting party. The informant has admitted in his evidence that the victim took her mobile when she left home. It is nowhere stated by the victim that during the period of her alleged kidnapping, she ever made any call to her parents. The conduct of the victim was normal when the police caught her along with the appellant. There is a delay of 43 days in lodging the FIR, which finds any plausible explanation. The victim left home of her own free will and married the appellant. A copy of the Marriage Registration Certificate, which bears 18.05.2010. It is signed by the victim and the appellant in the presence of the Registrar of Hindu Marriages, Gorakhpur, Even if before the Registrar, the victim made no complaint against the appellant or stated that she was being forcefully married with him.

¶24

He also submitted that in the medico-legal report, which was carried out by PW-5, Dr. Alka Singh, on 25/6/2010, stated that no internal or external injuries were found on her person. The menstrual bleeding was present from the uterus. He lastly submitted that in the FIR, the allegations are made against the appellant only, whereas in the statement of the victim, the main role has been assigned to co-accused Suresh Kumar Singh. The Chief Medical Officer has determined her age in his report around 19 years. PW1, the informant, has stated that he had seen her daughter and son-in-law, Gopal Paswan at the police station after her recovery. The victim has stated in her cross-examination, dated 15.04.2024, that prior to giving a statement before the magistrate, after the incident, she had consulted with her father and family members that Gopal Paswan took her to Lucknow. Now she had been married to some other person and blessed with children. She is not willing to prosecute the matter any further.

¶25

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submits that the appellant enticed away the victim and committed rape on her, detained her for one and a half months with him at various places and solemnized marriage with her against her will in association with co-accused Suresh Kumar Singh, therefore the appellant is not

¶26

CRLA No. 3971 of 2024

¶27

4

¶28

entitled for liberty of bail.

¶29

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the offense, the nature of evidence, the period of incarceration of the appellant, the fact that the factum of marriage of the victim with the appellant is not being denied, but it is stated to be forceful by the victim and keeping the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the fact that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future due to a heavy backlog and the appellant is convicted and sentenced for a term of imprisonment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶30

Let the appellant, namely, Gopal Paswan, be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number during the pendency of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶31

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

¶32

The appellant has undertaken not to indulge into any anti-social activity particularly against the informant and in the event of any such incident it shall be open to the complainant to make an application for cancellation of bail.

¶33

As regards fine, half of the amount of fine will be deposited on behalf of the appellant before his release from jail pursuant to present bail order, the remaining half of the fine shall be stayed during pendency the appeal.

¶34

Order of Appeal

¶35

List the appeal in due course for hearing.

¶36

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶37

January 13, 2026 dk/

¶38

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

Gopal Paswan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Paswan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

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

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Vaibhav Tivari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Syam Krishna Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Champa Devi @ Champa @ Badka and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Surya Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Alias Shubham Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another