High Court

1. Heard Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mukesh Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Despite the service of notice upon the complainant/ opposite party No.2, no one has put in appearance on her/ his behalf.

3. This is the second bail application as the first bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Pawar on 21.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14855 of 2023. The Hon'ble Judge has released the second bail application, therefore, this bail application has been listed before this Court.

4. Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith the copy of the statement of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3, which is taken on record.

5. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Rajkumari) is languishing in jail since 31.10.2023 in F.I.R./Case Crime No.309 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 109 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 and 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Para, District-Lucknow.

6.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that when the first bail application was rejected the trail was not started but after rejection of the first bail application the trial started and relevant fact witnesses have been examined. Therefore, the aforesaid fact may be considered as new ground to grant bail to the present applicant in the second bail application. Though, the allegations levelled against the present applicant are false and misconceived and she has not committed any offence as alleged but this being a second bail application, she is not reiterating such arguments as those arguments have already been taken in the first bail application. The second bail application is only being pressed on a new ground which has been argued above.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that since the relevant fact witnesses have been examined and the present applicant is languishing in jail more than twenty months, therefore, considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant and providing her the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 B.N.S.S., she may be enlarged on bail. He has stated that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He undertakes on behalf of the applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

10.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that when the first bail application was rejected the trial was not started but after rejection of the first bail application the trial started and relevant fact witnesses have been examined; the period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. more than twenty month; there is no criminal history against the present applicant and the undertaking that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order; the fact that she being a lady, she may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 B.N.S.S, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant (Rajkumari) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of 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 her in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

1. Heard Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mukesh Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Despite the service of notice upon the complainant/ opposite party No.2, no one has put in appearance on her/ his behalf.

3. This is the second bail application as the first bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Pawar on 21.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14855 of 2023. The Hon'ble Judge has released the second bail application, therefore, this bail application has been listed before this Court.

4. Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith the copy of the statement of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3, which is taken on record.

5. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Rajkumari) is languishing in jail since 31.10.2023 in F.I.R./Case Crime No.309 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 109 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 and 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Para, District-Lucknow.

6.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that when the first bail application was rejected the trail was not started but after rejection of the first bail application the trial started and relevant fact witnesses have been examined. Therefore, the aforesaid fact may be considered as new ground to grant bail to the present applicant in the second bail application. Though, the allegations levelled against the present applicant are false and misconceived and she has not committed any offence as alleged but this being a second bail application, she is not reiterating such arguments as those arguments have already been taken in the first bail application. The second bail application is only being pressed on a new ground which has been argued above.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that since the relevant fact witnesses have been examined and the present applicant is languishing in jail more than twenty months, therefore, considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant and providing her the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 B.N.S.S., she may be enlarged on bail. He has stated that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He undertakes on behalf of the applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

10.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that when the first bail application was rejected the trial was not started but after rejection of the first bail application the trial started and relevant fact witnesses have been examined; the period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. more than twenty month; there is no criminal history against the present applicant and the undertaking that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order; the fact that she being a lady, she may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 B.N.S.S, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant (Rajkumari) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of 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 her in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]