# Abdul Raseed v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 911
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4122 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abdul-raseed-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54754
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Judge (SC/ST Act) under Section 14-A(2) of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 was justified, and whether, having regard
to the nature of allegations, absence of medical
corroboration, contradictions in the victim's
statement, lack of criminal antecedents and
prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the appellant
was entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Headnotes
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
s.14-A(2), ss.3(1)(da), 3(1)(ha), 3(2)(v);
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss.147, 323,
376, 452, 504, 506; 376-D - Bail - Scope
of appellate interference - Prima facie
case
-
Medical
corroboration
-
Contradictions in victim's statement - No
criminal antecedents - Prolonged custody
- Bail granted.

Held:
An appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST
Act is maintainable against an order rejecting
bail, and the High Court is empowered to
examine whether the order suffers from
infirmity or illegality. Bail cannot be denied
mechanically
merely
on
the
gravity
of
allegations, particularly when liberty of the
accused is at stake. [Paras 1, 6-7]

In the present case, the allegations against the
appellant disclosed no medical corroboration
of sexual assault. The statements of the victim
recorded under the provisions of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita disclosed material
inconsistencies. The victim was a major woman
aged about 29 years. The appellant had no
previous criminal history and was in custody
since 26.11.2024. [Paras 3-4, 7]

The essential ingredients to attract the offences
under the SC/ST Act were prima facie not
clearly established, and the trial had not
commenced
with
no
likelihood
of
early
conclusion. Continued incarceration in such
circumstances was unwarranted. [Paras 4, 7]

The Special Judge erred in rejecting the bail
application without properly appreciating the
aforesaid factors. The impugned orders were
found to suffer from infirmity and illegality. Bail
granted with conditions to ensure presence of
the accused and to prevent misuse of liberty.
[Paras 7-9]

Bail granted. (E-14)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts / Statutes
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Indian
Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.

List of Keywords
Bail; Sexual offence; Absence of medical
evidence; Contradictions in victim's statement;
No criminal antecedents; Prolonged custody.

Case Arising From
Orders dated 13.01.2025 and 05.02.2025
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge /
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kushinagar at
Padrauna, rejecting bail in Bail Application
No. 3087 of 2024 and Bail Application No.
292 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.
393 of 2024, Police Station Ahirauli Bazar,
District Kushinagar.
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Juned Alam
For the State: Government Advocate

## Text

8 All. Abdul Raseed Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
911
(2025) 8 ILRA 911
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4122 of 2025

Abdul Raseed ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Juned Alam

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issues for Consideration
Whether the rejection of bail by the Special
Judge (SC/ST Act) under Section 14-A(2) of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 was justified, and whether, having regard
to the nature of allegations, absence of medical
corroboration, contradictions in the victim's
statement, lack of criminal antecedents and
prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the appellant
was entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Headnotes
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
s.14-A(2), ss.3(1)(da), 3(1)(ha), 3(2)(v);
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss.147, 323,
376, 452, 504, 506; 376-D - Bail - Scope
of appellate interference - Prima facie
case
-
Medical
corroboration
-
Contradictions in victim's statement - No
criminal antecedents - Prolonged custody
- Bail granted.

Held:
An appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST
Act is maintainable against an order rejecting
bail, and the High Court is empowered to
examine whether the order suffers from
infirmity or illegality. Bail cannot be denied
mechanically
merely
on
the
gravity
of
allegations, particularly when liberty of the
accused is at stake. [Paras 1, 6-7]

In the present case, the allegations against the
appellant disclosed no medical corroboration
of sexual assault. The statements of the victim
recorded under the provisions of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita disclosed material
inconsistencies. The victim was a major woman
aged about 29 years. The appellant had no
previous criminal history and was in custody
since 26.11.2024. [Paras 3-4, 7]

The essential ingredients to attract the offences
under the SC/ST Act were prima facie not
clearly established, and the trial had not
commenced
with
no
likelihood
of
early
conclusion. Continued incarceration in such
circumstances was unwarranted. [Paras 4, 7]

The Special Judge erred in rejecting the bail
application without properly appreciating the
aforesaid factors. The impugned orders were
found to suffer from infirmity and illegality. Bail
granted with conditions to ensure presence of
the accused and to prevent misuse of liberty.
[Paras 7-9]

Bail granted. (E-14)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts / Statutes
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Indian
Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.

List of Keywords
Bail; Sexual offence; Absence of medical
evidence; Contradictions in victim's statement;
No criminal antecedents; Prolonged custody.

Case Arising From
Orders dated 13.01.2025 and 05.02.2025
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge /
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kushinagar at
Padrauna, rejecting bail in Bail Application
No. 3087 of 2024 and Bail Application No.
292 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.
393 of 2024, Police Station Ahirauli Bazar,
District Kushinagar.
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Juned Alam
For the State: Government Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

Ref:
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.01 of 2025

1. The present criminal appeal under
Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act has been filed by the appellant to set
aside the bail rejection orders dated
13.01.2025 and 05.02.2025 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(SC/ST Act) Kushinagar at Padrauna
passed in 1st Bail Application No.3087 of
2024 in Case Crime No.393 of 2024, under
Sections 147, 323, 376, 452, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (ha) and 3(2)
(V) SC/ST Act and 2nd Bail Application
No.292 of 2025, under Section 376D IPC,
Police Station Ahirauli Bazar, District
Kushinagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, the learned AGA for the Staterespondent no.1 and perused the entire
record. Despite service of notice, none has
appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.

3. According to the prosecution case,
on 10.05.2024 at about 6.30 pm in the
evening when the informant was alone in
her house, the accused persons, namely,
Abdul Aziz and Abdul Rasheed entered
into the house of the victim and started
abusing her. Both accused pushed the
victim inside the house and closed the door
from inside, thereafter, co-accused Abdul
Aziz tore her cloths and threw her on the
ground. It is further alleged that accused
appellant started pressing the private part of
the victim and started moving his finger
inside her private part. It is further alleged
that when the victim tried to shout, the
accused Abdul Aziz pressed her mouth,
thereafter, both the accused persons ran
away from the spot giving threat.

4. Submission of learned counsel for
the appellant is that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
this case. The appellant has not committed
any offence as alleged in the impugned
FIR. Further submission is that the
prosecution story is totally false and
fabricated. As per statement of the victim
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of
BNSS, there are material contradictions in
her statement. The victim is aged about 29
years. No any medical report is supported
the prosecution story. Essential ingredients
to constitute the offence under the SC/ST
Act are lacking in the matter. Further
submission is that trial has not been started
as yet and there is no possibility of early
conclusion of trial, hence, the appellant
may be enlarged on bail. Appellant is
languishing in jail since 26.11.2024 having
no previous criminal history. Further
submission is that the impugned order
rejecting the bail application of the
appellant
suffers
from
infirmity
and
illegality warranting interference by this
Court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A.
opposing the prayer for bail has submitted
that the appellant committed the present
offence having knowledge that the victim
belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is
no infirmity or illegality in the impugned
order.

6.
I
have
considered
the
rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
8 All. Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
913
entire record including the impugned order
carefully.

7. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping in
view the nature of the offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused, role assigned to
the present appellant and the nature of
injury, the Court is of the opinion that the
appellant has made out a case for bail. The
Court below erred in rejecting the bail
application of the appellant. The impugned
order suffers from infirmity and illegality
and the same is liable to be set-aside and
the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed
and the impugned order rejecting the bail
application of the appellant is hereby setaside.

9. Let the appellant- Abdul Raseed,
involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 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.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 913
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1669 of 2025

Shankar Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ajay Sengar, Akshay Raj Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether, in view of Section 12 of the U.P.
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, the Sessions Trial
arising out of the IPC case was liable to be
kept in abeyance when a Special Sessions
Trial under the Gangsters Act arising out
of the same incident was pending against
the same accused.

Headnotes
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
s.12
-
Criminal Trial - Precedence of trial -
Special Court - Meaning of "kept in
abeyance" - Concurrent proceedings -
Mandatory nature - Error of Sessions
Court - Interference in revision-revision
allowed