Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Rawat vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46009
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3360 of 2024
Appellant :- Mukesh Rawat
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sagar Singh,Ram Prakash Singh,Shri Ram Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tirpathi,Surekha Patel
Connected with
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3951 of 2024
Appellant :- Anshu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sheel Nidhi Shukla,Jay Kumar Soni,Mahesh Chandra Gupta,Priya Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tirpathi,Surekha Patel
With
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3956 of 2024
Appellant :- Rohit Alias Vicky
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sheel Nidhi Shukla,Priya Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tirpathi,Surekha Patel
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Since all these appeals arise out of same FIR/case crime number, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2.Heard Shri Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.3360 of 2024), Shri Sheel Nidhi Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants (in Criminal Appeal Nos.3951 and 3956 of 2024), Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3.Appeal No.3360 of 2024 has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.5968 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.319 of 2024, under Sections 376-D, 323 and 506 I.P.C. & Section 67A of Information Technology Act, P.S.-Sushant Golf City, District- Lucknow.
4. Appeal No.3951 of 2024 has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act against the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.6409 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.319 of 2024, under Sections 376-D, 323 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Sushant Golf City, District- Lucknow.
5.Appeal No.3956 of 2024 has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act against the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.6407 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.319 of 2024, under Sections 376-D, 323 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Sushant Golf City, District- Lucknow.
6. While pressing the present appeals and impeaching the order, under appeal(s), dated 02.08.2024 and 13.09.2024, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow rejected the bail applications, i.e. Bail Application No(s).5968 of 2024, 6409 of 2024 and 6407 of 2024, preferred by the appellants, namely, Mukesh Rawat s/o Manoj Rawat, Anshu s/o Satrohan and Rohit @ Vicky s/o Ram Naresh, respectively, it is stated that opposite party no.2/victim is not a sterling witness. It is for the reason that when her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, she levelled allegations against all the accused named in the FIR. Subsequently, before the Magistrate concerned when her statement was recorded in terms of 164 Cr.P.C she levelled allegations against all the accused except Zaheer and during trial before the trial court with regard to co-accused Anwar, the victim stated that he was not involved in the alleged crime and further with regard to accused/appellant- Mukesh Rawat, she again stated that this accused was not involved in the crime.
7. It is further stated that it is settled principle of law that judgment of conviction can be passed on the statement given by the victim/prosecutrix, however, it is also settled principle of law that the victim/prosecutrix should be a sterling witness, which in this case is not.
8. It is also stated that the appellants, namely, Mukesh Rawat, Anshu and Rohit @ Vicky, having no criminal history, are in jail since 30.06.2024 and 10.07.2024 respectively.
9. He lastly submitted that all the aforesaid aspects of the case were not considered by the trial court, as such, the present appeal(s) are liable to be allowed and the impugned order(s) are liable to be set aside and the appellants are liable to be enlarged on bail.
10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellants' counsel.
11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeals, impugned order as well as F.I.R.
12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly the allegations against the appellants in FIR as also the period of incarceration and also the statement of victim during investigation and before the trial court and also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeals have substance and the same are, accordingly, allowed.
13. Orders dated 02.08.2024 and 13.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application Nos.5968 of 2024, 6409 of 2024 and 6407 of 2024, under SectionsSections 376-D, 323 and 506 I.P.C. & Section 67A of Information Technology Act, P.S.-Sushant Golf City, District- Lucknow, areset aside qua the appellants.
14. Let appellants Mukesh Rawat, Anshu and Rohit @ Vicky, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellants will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence.
(v) The appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.
(vii) The appellants will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
15. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
16. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellants on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 6.8.2025
Anand/-
