Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 17 July, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40773
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 602 of 2025
Appellant :- Manoj Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Hemant Kumar Mishra,Arti Ganguly
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in the Court today is taken on record.
2. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/complainant/victim despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-6 to the counter affidavit of State and Office Report dated 18.04.2025 as well as the order of this Court dated 21.04.2025, wherein, it has been indicated that notice has been served upon respondent No. 2 through her mother. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.
3. Heard SriHemant Kumar Mishra,counsel for the appellant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge [SC/ST (P.A.) Act], Hardoi in Bail Application No. 120 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. UPHR010002782025), arising out of Case Crime No. 316 of 2010, under Sections- 363, 366, 376 IPC read with Section- 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Atrauli, District- Hardoi.
5. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR in issue registered as Case Crime No. 316 of 2010, basis of pending criminal proceedings, was lodged by the opposite party No. 2/informant/victim on 04.11.2009 atPolice Station- Atrauli, District- Hardoi indicating therein the date of alleged incident as 02.05.2009 against the wife of Munni Lal, Manoj (appellant) s/o Kallu Das, Babu s/o Ram Lakhan, Kallu and Matai s/o Bhawani making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicatedunder Sections- 363, 366, 376 IPC.
6. As per the aforesaid FIR, accusedManoj (appellant herein) s/o Kallu Das and Ram Babu s/o Ram Lakhan abducted the informant/victim on 02.05.2009 at about 07.00 P.M. The FIR further indicates thataccused/appellant Manoj (appellant) s/o Kallu Das keep on making physical relations with the informant/victim on the pretext of false promise of marriage. Other allegations in the FIR are to the effect that father of accused/appellant also demanded Rs. 2000/- from the informant/victim in order to permit her to live in his house.
7. It is also stated that in fact the relationship of appellant and victim was consensual and as the same could not be continued for some reasons, therefore, with oblique motive, the FIR in issue was lodged by the informant/victim implicating the appellant and others, named above.
8. It is further stated that after due investigation charge sheet(s) have already been filed in the matter. The charge sheet against the appellant has been filed as an absconder.
9. It is further stated that the appellant was arrested and sent to jail on 15.01.2025.
10. It is further submitted that the statement of informant/victim has already been recorded before the trial court, copy of which is annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today, and a perusal thereof would show that the victim on her own volition resided with the accused/appellant and as such, it can be inferred that accused/appellant has not committed any crime.
11. Further submission is that the informant/victim has levelleved allegations in the FIR against the appellant to the effect that on the pretext of false promise of marriage, the appellant established physical relations with her, thus, if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value then in that eventuality, possibility of conviction of appellant is bleak in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s) rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 7 SCC;Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110and Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230.
12. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 15.01.2025. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
13. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.
14. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.
15. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including that the appellant is in jail since 15.01.2025 as well as the statement of victim recorded before the trial court and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.
16. Orderdated27.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge [SC/ST (P.A.) Act], Hardoi in Bail Application No. 120 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. UPHR010002782025), arising out of Case Crime No. 316 of 2010, under Sections- 363, 366, 376 IPC read with Section- 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Atrauli, District- Hardoiis hereby set aside.
17. Let the appellant-Manoj Kumarbe released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(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.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
18. 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
19. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order.
Order Date :- 17.7.2025
Arun/-
