Allahabad High Court
Anoop Rasbihari Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 2 June, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34198
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 796 of 2025
Appellant :- Anoop Rasbihari Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek,Utkarsh Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State-respondent no.1.
2. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.
3. Application has been filed seeking amendment in the name of father of the appellant.
4. Learned A.G.A. does not have any objection to the same.
5. In view thereof, application is allowed.
6. Appellant is granted liberty to make necessary amendments in the memorandum of appeal during the course of day.
7. As per office report dated 20.03.2025, opposite party no.2 has been served personally but has not put in appearance.
8. Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against bail rejection order dated 07.02.02025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Lucknow rejecting the bail application No. 505 of 2025 of the appellant in case crime No. 557 of 2024 under Sections 69, 115(2), 308(2), 351, 352(2) B.N.S. & 3(2)5 SC/ST Act of P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.
9. As per contents of FIR, appellant was in a physical relationship with the informant and had also promised marriage whereafter he declined and upon being confronted by the informant, allegedly physically assaulted her while making caste related epithets upon her.
10. It is submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be quite evident from the statement of mother of informant in which the aspect of appellant and his family members being agreeable to the proposal of marriage has been admitted. It is submitted that there is considerable difference between a false promise from the very inception and a breach of promise and in the present case, it is not a case of false promise being made from the inception. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithivirajan versus The State Rep by the Inspector of Police & another, SLP (Crl.) No. 12663 of 2022.
11. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the appeal with the submission that the contents of FIR clearly indicate the aspect of exploitation of the informant with the false promise of marriage and assault subsequently with refusal to marry the informant.
12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that primary allegation levelled against appellant is of refusal to marry the informant despite being in a physical relationship. The aspect of the promise of marriage by appellant being false in the very inception or being a subsequent breach of promise would be subject matter of trial with evidence. The statement of the mother of informant appears to be contrary to allegations levelled against appellant who is under incarceration since 12.01.2025. It is admitted that the appellant does not have any previous criminal history. The aspect of caste relatedepithets being given in a public or private place would also be requiring consideration by Trial Court.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for parties, without commenting upon merits, it appears that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of the above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly appeal is allowed and the order dated07.02.02025 is set aside.
14. Let appellant (Anoop Rasbihari Pandey) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The appellant 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.
(v) The appellant 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.
(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant 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.
Order Date :- 2.6.2025
Satish
