Allahabad High Court

AMIR HASANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

Bail is granted because the victim is an adult, her statements are contradictory, and there is no convincing evidence of the alleged offence.

Summary

The appellant Amir Hasan appealed against the denial of bail in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, where the victim, an 18‑year‑old woman, alleged that he had threatened and raped her. The appellant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the victim’s statements were contradictory – at one point she said she left home of her own accord, and later she accused the appellant of blackmail and rape – and that the victim was a major, rendering the SC/ST provisions inapplicable. The prosecution contended that the victim’s later statement named the appellant and that the matter required trial. The court observed that the victim was indeed an adult, the statements showed serious inconsistencies, and there was no medical evidence supporting the rape allegation, leading it to conclude that there was insufficient material to justify continued detention. Consequently, the court granted bail with strict conditions and set aside the trial court’s order denying bail. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act to grant bail to the accused.
Whether the contradictions in the victim’s statements and lack of medical evidence justify denial of bail.
Whether the victim’s status as a major affects the applicability of the SC/ST Act provisions.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 180, 183, 209, 269, 351, 351(3), 64(1), 84, 87
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)da, 3(2)V

Subjects

bail
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
contradictory statements
adult victim
rape allegation
criminal appeal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4171 of 2026

Amir Hasan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jalaj Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Purti Agarwal

Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Jalaj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Purti Agarwal, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for
the State and perused the record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant- Amir
Hasan, with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.03.2026 passed by
the Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hamirpur in Bail
Application No. 244 / 2026 (Amir Hasan Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime
No. 271 of 2025, under Sections 87, 64(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V, 3(1)da
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur.

4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 28.11.2025, under
Section 87 B.N.S. by the opposite party no.2 against unknown person alleging therein
that on 27.11.2025 at about 3.30 pm his daughter aged about 18 years went on her
scooty without informing anyone. Some unknown person has lured and enticed her
away. She was searched but could not be traced. She used to talk from her mobile on a
mobile to someone. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the appellant is not named in the
first information report. It is submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 180 B.N.S.S. has stated that she went from the house on her own as she got
angry from her mother and went to the house of her elder sister from where her
brother-in-law informed her father that she has come to his house. Later on other
family members came and took her back. No one has enticed her away. She went from
the house as she was angry. There was no illegal act committed on her. It is submitted
that subsequently in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. she changes
CRLA No. 4171 of 2026
2

the entire prosecution version and states that on 27.11.2025 at about 4 pm she was in a
college and called the appellant Amir Hasan through phone of her friend on which he
threatened her of marrying him or else he would launch her objectionable photographs
on which she went with him and he committed rape on her. She went to various places
where she was threatened by him. He was continuously pressurizing her for marriage
and blackmailing her. It is submitted that thus there are serious contradictions and
variations in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. It is further
submitted that as per the first information report itself the victim was aged about 18
years and thus a major. It is submitted that even otherwise the date of birth of the
victim as per the High School mark-sheet is 07.12.2006 and thus she was aged about
19 years at the time of incident. It is submitted that the medical evidence does not
corroborate with the prosecution story as the doctor did not opine about any rape
being committed and did not find any external or internal injury on her body. The
appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit and is in jail since
02.12.2025.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the
State opposed the prayer for bail in the present appeal. It is submitted that the victim
in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has named the appellant and has
levelled allegations of rape on him. It is submitted that the present case is a case which
needs to be put up for trial and then actual facts would come. It is submitted that the
prayer for bail be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is
evident that as per the first information report itself the victim was stated to be a major
and even as per her High School mark-sheet she was a major. There are serious
contradictions and variations in her statements recorded during investigation as at one
point of time she states that she went from the house after getting angry with her
mother whereas in her other statement she states of calling the appellant through
phone of her friend and he threatened her of marrying him and committing rape on
her.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also
the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the appellant- Amir Hasan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being
imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or
harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
CRLA No. 4171 of 2026
3

(ii) The appellant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and
will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In
case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse
of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In
case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his
presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant
fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209
B.N.S., 2023.

(v) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed
for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under
Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant
is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat
such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law
and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the
trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court
concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court
concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.

11. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.

12. The impugned order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the Additional Session Judge /
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hamirpur of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

May 7, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…