Allahabad High Court
Joginder Alias Jogi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 June, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:96325
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12010 of 2024
Appellant :- Joginder Alias Jogi
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Mohan,Yogesh Kumar Patel
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. As per office report dated 08.04.2025, notice is personally served upon respondent no.2. However, no one has put in appearance on her behalf.
2. In this view of the matter, notice is deemed to be sufficient on respondent no.2.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.
4. Instant appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in brevity, SC/ST Act) has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 05.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra in Bail Application No. 5285 of 2024 (Joginder @ Jogi Vs. State) arising out of Case Crime No. 564 of 2024, under Sections 69, 351(3), 191(2), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Tajganj, District-Agra, whereby the aforesaid bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
5. As per version in the F.I.R., prosecutrix is in relationship with the accused (appellant) for the past three years. During this period, the accused has established physical relations with her on multiple occasions under the pretext of marriage. He has also taken money from her. However, while the prosecutrix pressurized the accused for marriage, he and his family member have threatened the victim of dire consequences, including making an objectionable video viral.
6. It is submitted that the consensual relationship between the prosecutrix and the present appellant, which lasted over three years, has illegally been tried to be dragged into a criminal proceeding. No objectionable video is made part of the case diary to support the allegation. Present appellant has never threatened the victim to viral such video on the social media. It is next submitted that relationship between the parties have been accepted to the family members of the prosecutorix. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the appellant has deliberately subjected the victim to forceful sexual assault, having knowledge of the fact that she belongs to the S.C/S.T. community. On the face of the F.I.R., no case under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the present appellant. There is no allegation suggesting that the prosecutrix was victimized due to her caste.
7. Per contra, learned AGA, has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that at this stage, the innocence of the present appellant cannot be inferred which requires trial. In the given circumstances of the present case, no interference is warranted of this Court in the instant appeal.
8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it is manifest that the prosecutrix has admitted the relationship with the present appellant since last three years, however, in subsequent part of the F.I.R, she has tried to portray different story that she has been physically assaulted under the pretext of marriage. Theory regarding the payment of money by the prosecutrix to the appellant, and the subsequent claim of extortion, as stated in the F.I.R., is not supported by any evidence on record. No material is available on the record to demonstrate that the prosecutrix has ever tried to resist the long relationship with the accused and exit from that relationship because of physical exploitation. She chose to keep herself in the physical relationship with the accused. On the face of the F.I.R., no prima facie case is made out under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Furthermore, even in the prosecutrix's statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., there is nothing to establish that she was deliberately subjected to physical assault by the appellant owing to her caste. Needless to say that, to attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, the sine quo non is that victim should be a person, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes community and the offence is committed against the victim on the basis of his caste being a person belongs to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes community. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557, has elucidated the scope of of Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act with specific observation that for the applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, the crime under the I.P.C. should be committed against the victim because of his caste being a member belongs to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes community. Thus, prima faice, at this stage, no case is made out under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
9. In this conspectus, as above, I am of the considered view that in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the present appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
10. Resultantly, the instant appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated 05.11.2024, rejecting the bail application of the appellant, is hereby quashed.
11. Let the appellant, namely, Joginder Alias Jogi involved in the aforesaid crime, 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 shall be verified.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected.
(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.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 11.6.2025
Sumit K.
