Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Chaudhary 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:96339
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11991 of 2024
Appellant :- Abhishek Chaudhary
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. As per office report dated 08.07.2025, notice is personally served upon respondent no. 2. However, despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on her behalf.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. representing the State-respondent.
3. Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in Bail Application No. 1205 of 2024 (Abhishek Chaudhary versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 678 of 2024 under Sections 376(3), 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, whereby bail application has been rejected.
4. As per F.I.R. version, accused, namely, Abhishek Chaudhary who is the friend of prosecutrix's husband, used to frequently visit her house and had regular conversations with her. One day, in the absence of her husband, accused forcibly committed rape on the prosecutrix at her home. He also threatened her that if she told anyone about the incident, he would defame her. Out of fear and shame, she remained silent. Taking advantage of the silence, accused continued to threaten and intimidate the prosecutrix, and has been repeatedly raping her for the past three years. While this fact came to the knowledge of her husband, he has refused to keep the victim with him. Even the Abhishek Chaudhary (accused) has refused to keep the victim with him. His brother and he has threatened the victim for facing dire consequences in case she followed the accused.
5. It is submitted that false and malicious prosecution has been instituted against the present applicant. Prior to the F.I.R. dated 04.09.2024, prosecutrix has made a complaint on I.G.R.S. reference No. 40018624007329 dated 10.07.2024 against the accused. In the aforesaid complaint, she has made statement before the investigating officer that her husband has borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from the accused. However, he is unnecessarily harassing her for return of the said amount and also subjected her to forceful sexual assault in the garb of lent money.It is further submitted that intending to usurp the lent money, false and malicious prosecution has been instituted by the prosecutrix in collusion with her husband. In medical report, no sign of forceful sexual assault has been mentioned.As per F.I.R. case, both the persons are in consensual relationship since last three years. However, all of a sudden after three years, allegation of forceful sexual assault has been levelled against the present appellant.Appellant is in incarceration since 20.09.2024.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant and contended that at this juncture, the innocence of the present appellant cannot be inferred and no ground is made out to warrant the indulgence of this Court in the instant appeal.
7. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and upon perusal of record, it manifest that sexual relationship between the prosecutrix and the present appellant is admitted and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- lent to the husband of the victim is admitted as well.F.I.R. has been lodged at a very belated stage on 04.09.2024, despite the fact that, as per the case of the F.I.R., victim was allegedly subjected to forceful sexual assault by the accused since last three years. Prosecutrix is a matured and married lady. She fully understands the meaning and consequences of sexual relationship, may be a forcible or consensual. She never chose to resist and come out of the relationship since last three years.Prima facie, it appears that consensual relationship between the parties has been tried to be dragged into the criminal proceedings.It is also a matter of consideration that on the face of F.I.R. it cannot be inferred that victim has been subjected to forcible sexual assault because of her caste being a member of S.C. and S.T. community and said fact was well known to the present appellant who has deliberately subjected the victim for forceful sexual assault being her member of Scheduled Caste.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case coupled with the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and the documents on board, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,in my considered opinion, prima facie case is made out to grant bail to the present appellant, as such, instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.11.2024, rejecting the bail application, is set aside.
9. The presentappellantAbhishek Chaudhary, involved inCase Crime No. 678 of 2024 registered under Sections 376(3), 506 I.P.C. and 3(ii)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagaris hereby 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 should 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, of the commission of which he is 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.
10. 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
SY
