Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kausik Singh @ Rajesh Kumar Singh ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko ... on 8 October, 2025
Author: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:62074
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3132 of 2025
Rajesh Kausik Singh @ Rajesh Kumar Singh And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
S.P. Singh Somvanshi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Abdul Rafique
Court No. - 28
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Abdul Rafique, Advocate on behalf of private respondent/respondent No.3 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as "Act, 1989) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Sitapur, whereby the anticipatory bail application No. 280/2025 filed by the appellant/accused in Case Crime No. 57/2025, under Sections 70(1), 351 (3), B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rampur Kala, District Sitapur has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that the complainant registered the F.I.R. against the appellants on 02.03.2025 at 20.30 with the allegation that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste category and the applicants belong to general category, who are Contractor in the Kunduni Factory, District Sitapur and when the complainant was searching job in the company then the appellants met her and assured to her for provide the job with the salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month and in this consequence on 23.01.2025 they called the informant to their room at 6.00 p.m.. When the informant reached there they bolted the door inside and raped on her one by one on the pointing of knife.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that the appellants/applicants is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No such incident took place, as alleged by the prosecutrix in the F.I.R.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant next submits that the entire prosecution story is concocted and no case under Sections 70(1), 351 (3), B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act is made out against them. He also places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in (2023) SCC Onlin3 Bom 2713: Aniket Vs. State of Maharashtra, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala 2024 INSC 625, Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727, Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashta and another (2018) 6 SCC 454, Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2020 (4) SCC 761 and Swaran Singh Vs. State through Standing Counsel (2008) 8 SCC 435.
7. Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the case belongs to the SC/ST Act, therefore, application for anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and in view of that learned court below has rejected the application for anticipatory bail with the finding that the anticipatory bail is not maintainable, which is consonance with the law. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 is also in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned A.G.A. for the State and submits that there is no jurisdiction of anticipatory bail in the cases of SC/ST Act and submits that the prayer for bail of appellant may be rejected. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on paragraph no. 6 of the latest judgment of three judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1886, which reads as under : -
"6. In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, Cr.P.C., it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off. "
9. On perusal of the materials on record it appears that in F.I.R. it is mentioned that the informant belongs to Scheduled Caste community (Paasi) while the appellants/applicants belong to "thakur" caste of general category, who committed rape on her and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this court is of the view that the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Sitapur arising out of Case Crime No. 57/2025, under Sections 70(1), 351 (3), B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rampur Kala, District Sitapur does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Thus, the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 does not need any interference by this Court.
10. In view of above, anticipatory bail application of the appellant is rejected.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
11. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the prayer for bail/appeal and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.)
October 8, 2025
Arvind
