Rajan Bind vs State of U.P. and Another

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the bail rejection order dated 15.12.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Mirzapur in Bail Application No.1900 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2025, under Sections 69 and 351(3) BNS and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jigna, District Mirzapur.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the Staterespondent no.1 and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶13

In short, the prosecution story is that the appellant has committed rape upon the victim on the pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that when the victim creates pressure upon the appellant to solemnize marriage, the appellant while abusing has also threatened to kill the victim.

¶14

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. The incident is said to have taken place between 22.02.2022 to 01.11.2024 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 11.07.2025 for which no explanation has been mentioned. Further submission is that the victim is major aged about 29 years and married lady having two children aged about 7 years and 5 years respectively. Further submission is that the appellant neither committed rape upon the victim nor

¶15

CRLA No. 713 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

he ever made sexual relation with the victim as alleged in the impugned FIR and her statement as well. As per statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, there are material contradictions in her statement and it appears that the victim is a consenting party. As per medical examination report, no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. Appellant is languishing in jail since 27.09.2025 having no previous criminal history. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶18

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶19

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.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶21

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

¶22

Let the appellant- Rajan Bind, involved in aforesaid case crime number 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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

CRLA No. 713 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

presence is exempted.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

March 19, 2026 Ajeet

¶33

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶34

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

Rajan Bind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Bind 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

Jitendra Rajput vs State of U.P. and Another

Manjeeta Sahu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritu Soni vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Anchal Sahu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Rajpoot vs State of U.P. and Another