[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Ramlal Kushwaha vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 April, 2026
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:83728
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11214 of 2025
Ramlal Kushwaha
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Maneesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Maneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
3. Counter affidavit dated 12.12.2025 of the State is on record in which as per paragraph 2 notice has been served upon the informant, the copy of the said report is annexed as Annexure-CA-1 to the same. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 / informant.
4. Rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant.
5. This is second prayer for bail of the appellant before this Court in the present appeal. The first appeal with prayer for bail of the appellant being Criminal Appeal No. 12184 of 2024 (Ramlal Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. and Another) has been dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2025 passed by another Bench of this Court.
6. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ramlal Kushwaha with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda in second bail application no. 1216 / 2025 (Ramlal Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.101 of 2024, under Sections 127 (2), 64 (1) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Badausa, District Banda.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial in the present matter has started in which the victim has been examined as P.W.-1 and her husband Lalit has been examined as P.W.-2 and there are contradictions in the statements of both the witnesses specifically with regard to the fact that at the time of incident family members of the accused were present in the house. It is submitted that thus the same goes to show that the prosecution story is not truthful. It is submitted that the appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 25.07.2024.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail in the present appeal and submitted that the first bail of the appellant in the previous appeal has been rejected by a speaking order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which two witnesses including the victim have been examined wherein both the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the appellant is the person named by the victim and there are allegation of his committing rape. It is submitted that in so far as the alleged contradictions are concerned, the same are not to the nature of contradictions which would go to show that the entire prosecution case is untrustworthy and false. It is submitted that thus the present prayer for bail in the present appeal be rejected.
9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is second appeal with prayer for bail of the appellant. The first appeal with prayer for bail of the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2025 passed by another Bench of this Court, the said order reads as under:-
"1. As per office report, notice has been served upon opposite party no.2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ramlal Kushwaha with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.9.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / Additional Session Judge, Banda and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.101 of 2024 under Sections 127 (2), 64 (1) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Badausa, District Banda.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the prosecutrix alongwith her husband Lalit had gone to the place of present accused appellant for performing some pooja and after some time the accused appellant sent her husband for some work and committed rape with the victim, who was a married lady. The incident occurred on 19.7.2024 at about 6:00 P.M. F.I.R. was lodged and the prosecutrix was medically examined and after investigation now charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused appellant.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this case.
It is also submitted that the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged on the basis of false and fabricated facts. The real fact is that Lalit, the husband of the victim, had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the appellant and when it was demanded back by the appellant, he was falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that in her statement recorded under section 183 Cr.P.C., some twisted statements have been made by the lady victim, which falsifies the prosecution story. It is also submitted that no external or internal injury was found on the body of the victim in the medical examination. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 25.7.2024 having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Banda. It is further submitted that the Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. The medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution story. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant and as a matter of fact, in her statement under sections 180 and 183 BNSS the victim has fully corroborated the prosecution version. Although some typing mistakes have been occurred in her statement made under section 183 BNSS but the crux of the matter is that not only the victim but her husband Lalit has also corroborated the incident which was seen by him also from the window of the room. It is also submitted that the offence is very serious and rape has been committed with a married lady who had gone to the house of the accused with full faith for performing some pooja / rituals. It is also submitted that the victim of this case belongs to SC/ST community and the accused appellant committed the alleged offence having knowledge that she belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. Since the victim is a married lady and her medical was performed after one day of the occurrence, no advantage for any shortcoming in the medical report can be given to the accused appellant at this stage. Active participation of the accused appellant in the commission of the crime has come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. Offence is very grave and serious in nature. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the fact that the victim of this case has fully corroborated the prosecution story in her statements under sections 180 and 183 BNSS and her husband is also an eyewitness of the alleged occurrence and the defence taken by the accused appellant for lending the money to the husband of the victim is also without substance, as no evidence thereof has been submitted on record by the defence, it appears from perusal of material available on record that the court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, in view of the above consideration and considering the gravity of the offence, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court concerned dated 23.9.2024 is affirmed. No ground is made out to release the accused appellant on bail by allowing the present appeal.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed."
10. The trial in the present matter is going on in which the victim / first informant has been examined as P.W.-1 and her husband Lalit has been examined as P.W.-2. The witnesses have supported the prosecution case. In so far as the alleged contradictions are concerned, the same are not to the nature that would totally discredit the prosecution case. Even the same is to be looked by the trial court at the appropriate stage in the trial. There is no new & fresh ground in the present second appeal with prayer for bail.
11. The appeal is dismissed.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
April 16, 2026
AS Rathore
