Allahabad High Court
Urmila vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 5 June, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34736
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 964 of 2025
Appellant :- Urmila
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Singh,Amritesh Kumar Tripathi,Parth Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Suresh Singh
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A for State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2-informant.
2. Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Lucknow rejecting the anticipatory bail application No. 1553 of 2025 of the appellant in case crime No. 57 of 2025 under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, 452, 392 B.N.S. & 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act of P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow.
3. As per contents of F.I.R, main allegations is leveled against the co-accused, Ashok Kumar Yadav, who is stated to have entered into physical relationship with the informant on the false pretext of marriage. It is stated that the appellant, thereafter forcibly entered into the house of the informant along with the main accused and is said to have made caste based insults against the informant.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that she has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against her which would be quite evident from the fact that as per judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (9) SCR 593, caste based insults which is not within public view would not come within the domain of Section 3of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1989").
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the anticipatory bail application with the submission that even as per contents of F.I.R., imputation of Section 375 read with Section 376 I.P.C. are clearly made out particularly pertaining to entering into physical relationship on the false pretext of marriage and, therefore, inducing the informant to enter into such relationship on the basis of misconception.
6. Learned counsel for informant has reiterated the aspect that the present appeal would not be maintainable for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions, admitted that there is no previous criminal history of appellant and she has cooperated during the investigation.
8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears from the perusal of F.I.R. that main allegation has been leveled against co-accused Ashok Kumar Yadav of having induced physical relationship with the informant on the false pretext of marriage. Allegations levelled against the appellant of forcibly entering into the house of the informant and making caste based epithets against her would require examination by trial court in the light of Section 3 of Act, 1989 read with judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra). It has been submitted that appellantdoes not have any previous criminal history,she has cooperated during the investigation and now charge-sheet against appellant has already been filed.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and the appellant indicates to have cooperated in the investigation, this Court finds the appellant to be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS.
10. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, applicant -Urmila shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;
(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
11. Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed
12. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 5.6.2025
Preeti.
