Satyam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12323 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Satyam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 11 November, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:71449
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2029 of 2025   
 
   Satyam    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Anju Tripathi, Ashutosh Tiwari   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 13
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.      

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.

2. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State and order of this Court dated 04.11.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 04.11.2025, which says "It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground including illness slip and appropriate orders would be passed in the first call, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. as well as 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 10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 12, District- Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1559 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 108 of 2025, under Sections- 137(2), 87, 64, 351(3) B.N.S., Section- 3/4 POCSO Act and Section- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kadipur, District- Sultanpur.

5. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant and the prosecutrix/victim, who at relevant point of time was an adult from physical appearance, were known to each other rather were in affair, as would appear from the statement of victim recorded before the Investigating Officer (in short "IO") in terms of Section 180 B.N.S.S., akin to Section 161 Cr.P.C. (now repealed), annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the bail application.

6. A perusal of statement of victim recorded in terms of Section 180 B.N.S.S. further indicates that the victim on her own volition left her parental house on 06.03.2025 and accompanied the applicant to Sultanpur and thereafter to Punjab and after staying for seven days at Punjab they returned to Sultanpur and thereafter uncle of applicant dropped the victim at Kadipur. This statement also indicates that the victim want to marry the applicant.

7. It is further stated that on 09.03.2025, the father of victim lodged the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0108/2025 at Police Station- Kadipur, District- Sultanpur making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Section(s) 137(2), 87, 351(3) B.N.S., akin to Section(s) 363, 366, 506 IPC, respectively.

8. It is further stated that considering the age of victim indicated in school records, Section 64 B.N.S., akin to Section 376 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act were added by the IO.

9. It is also stated that before the Magistrate while making the statement in terms of Section 183 B.N.S.S., akin to Section 164 Cr.P.C. (now repealed), the victim indicated the same facts as indicated before the IO while making her statement in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. with some improvements, though not correct, as per which the applicant forcibly took the victim to Punjab and also established physical relations with her and no evidence in this regard is available with the prosecution, as medical opinion does not support the same.

10. It is further stated that the date of birth of victim is subject to evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court and at this stage of bail, the benefit of the various pronouncements/judgments related to determination of age including the case(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604, State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, Suhani Vs. State of U.P. delivered on 26.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No.8001 of 2018 and in the case of Manak Chand alias Mani Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397, shall be extended in favour of the appellant.

11. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 statements of victim recorded in terms of Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. and also that the appellant is in jail since 24.04.2025 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.

15. Order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 12, District- Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1559 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 108 of 2025, under Sections- 137(2), 87, 64, 351(3) B.N.S., Section- 3/4 POCSO Act and Section- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kadipur, District- Sultanpur is hereby set aside.

16. Let the appellant- Satyam be 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.

17. 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

18. 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.

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

November 11, 2025

Arun/-