Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3693
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Shivam Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 3108 of 2025
Decided On : 10-12-2025
For the Appellants : Banwari Lal
For the Respondents: G.A
The court granted bail due to significant delays in FIR lodging and contradictions in the complainant's statements, highlighting a lack of credible evidence against the appellant.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A(2) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 64, 352, 351(3), 125 - Bail application - The appellant seeks bail after being rejected in the lower court, emphasizing the significant delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in the complainant's statements, and asserting innocence. The court considers these factors alongside the appellant's lack of a criminal history. (Paras 1, 4, 5)
(B) Bail - Factors influencing bail - The court evaluates the timing of FIR registration, nature of accusations, and the appellant's prior incarceration. It suggests that the merits of the case must remain unaffected by the bail decision. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
This appeal arises from the rejection of a bail application of the appellant charged with serious offences under both the SC/ST Act and the BNS, with a notable five-month delay in the FIR's lodging.
Findings of Court:
The court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to bail considering the evidence of contradictions in the prosecution story and the duration of custody.
Issues: The key issues included the innocence of the appellant against serious charges, delay in FIR, and contradictions in statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the contradictions and delay cast doubt on the prosecution's credibility, thus supporting the appellant's case for bail.
Result: The impugned order is set aside, and bail is granted to the appellant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the bail application (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
(Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.01 of 2025)
1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State. Despite sufficient opportunity, non-appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 08.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Sitapur, rejecting the bail application (No. 242 of 2025) of the appellant, Shivam Sharma S/o Rajesh Sharma, in connection with Case Crime No. 0078 of 2025, under Sections 64 , 352, 351(3), 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023 and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da)(dha) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Maholi, District-Sitapur. The appellant is currently in jail since 19.07.2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, aged about 30 years, is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity and ulterior motive. It is further argued that there is a significant and unexplained delay of approximately 5 months in lodging the FIR, which was registered on 06.03.2025 for an incident allegedly occurring on 12.10.2024. The counsel contends that the complainant, who is a married woman aged about 30 years (as per FIR) but claimed to be over 40 years in the grounds, having an 11-year-old child, was living in a relationship with the appellant. It is falsely stated that the accused appellant established a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage, and it is impossible for such relations to have continued for four years solely on this basis. The counsel points out that there are vast contradictions in the statements of the complainant, which were recorded under Section 180 BNS on 07.03.2025 and changed in her subsequent statement under Section 183 on 04.04.2025. Though the investigation noted the medical report stated "sexual violence cannot be ruled out," the appellant asserts the charges are fabricated. Finally, the appellant has no criminal history and has been in continuous judicial custody since 19.07.2025.
Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, arguing that the offences are serious, and the chargesheet has been filed under Section 64 (Rape) BNS and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act. However, the AGA could not directly contradict the specific factual submissions made by the appellant's counsel regarding the significant delay of about five months in lodging the FIR, or the contradictions observed in the complainant's statements, particularly the changes between her statement recorded under Section 180 on 07.03.2025 and her later statement recorded under Section 183 on 04.04.2025. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the complainant's age is recorded as 1995, making her about 30 years old. She is a married woman and mother of one child aged about 11 years, and it appears she was living in a relationship with the appellant and established physical relations four years prior to the FIR. The AGA conceded that the record shows the appellant has no criminal history and has been in continuous judicial custody since 19.07.2025.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, particularly the contradictory nature of the prosecution story evidenced by the changes in the complainant's statements (recorded under Section 180 BNS on 07.03.2025 and Section 183 on 04.04.2025 ) and the alleged fabricated nature of the charges against the appellant's family members, the significant delay of five months in lodging the FIR, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant since 19.07.2025, and the fact that the appeal against the rejection of bail by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur, dated 08.08.2025 is the statutory right of the appellant, this Court is of t
