High Court

1. Heard Sri Vivek Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 30.8.2024 in Case Crime No. 0551 of 2024 u/s 376(2)N IPC & Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Ram Nagar, District Barabanki. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 1.7.2023 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.8.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay. Even as per the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R. the accused-applicant is having cordial relation with the prosecutrix for last four years. On the basis of educational documents her age is below marriageable age but while recording her statement she has stated that she is aged about 18 years. In any case presently she has already attained the marriageable age.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has informed that the prosecutrix has visited the applicant in jail whereas the applicant has stated that he is willing to marry with her and she is also ready to marry with him.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted on the basis of specific instructions that the present applicant is ready to get married with the prosecutrix and he has been implicated only for the reason that the mother of the prosecutrix namely, Reshma, was not agreeable for such marriage. However, the mother of the prosecutrix who is present in the Court has stated that she has no objection if her daughter gets married with the applicant. She has also informed that her daughter has attained marriageable age.

6. Learned AGA has submitted that at the time of lodging of F.I.R. the prosecutrix was 17 years old, therefore, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged under some section of POCSO Act.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the statement of the prosecutrix, the fact that in the F.I.R. the date of incident has been indicated as 1.7.2023 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.8.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay, even as per the prosecution story the accused-applicant is having cordial relation with the prosecutrix for last four years, on the basis of educational documents age of prosecutrix was below marriageable age but while recording her statement she has stated that she is aged about 18 years, presently the prosecutrix has already attained the marriageable age, applicant is ready to get married with the prosecutrix and he has been implicated only for the reason that the mother of the prosecutrix namely, Reshma, was not agreeable for such marriage, the mother of the prosecutrix who is present in the Court has stated that she has no objection if her daughter gets married with the applicant, she has also informed that her daughter has attained marriageable age, I find it appropriate that the present applicant be enlarged on bail.

8. As soon as he is released from jail he shall marry with the prosecutrix within a period of one month. Thereafter he shall get his marriage registered before the Marriage Registering Authority. He shall take care of the prosecutrix properly and if in any case it is found that the present applicant violates his undertaking, this bail order may be cancelled on application being filed on behalf of prosecutrix or the State. He shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

10. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

11. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant Zaheeruddin, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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 applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.may be issued and if the 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. . Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Om (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vivek Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 30.8.2024 in Case Crime No. 0551 of 2024 u/s 376(2)N IPC & Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Ram Nagar, District Barabanki. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 1.7.2023 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.8.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay. Even as per the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R. the accused-applicant is having cordial relation with the prosecutrix for last four years. On the basis of educational documents her age is below marriageable age but while recording her statement she has stated that she is aged about 18 years. In any case presently she has already attained the marriageable age.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has informed that the prosecutrix has visited the applicant in jail whereas the applicant has stated that he is willing to marry with her and she is also ready to marry with him.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted on the basis of specific instructions that the present applicant is ready to get married with the prosecutrix and he has been implicated only for the reason that the mother of the prosecutrix namely, Reshma, was not agreeable for such marriage. However, the mother of the prosecutrix who is present in the Court has stated that she has no objection if her daughter gets married with the applicant. She has also informed that her daughter has attained marriageable age.

6. Learned AGA has submitted that at the time of lodging of F.I.R. the prosecutrix was 17 years old, therefore, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged under some section of POCSO Act.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the statement of the prosecutrix, the fact that in the F.I.R. the date of incident has been indicated as 1.7.2023 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.8.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay, even as per the prosecution story the accused-applicant is having cordial relation with the prosecutrix for last four years, on the basis of educational documents age of prosecutrix was below marriageable age but while recording her statement she has stated that she is aged about 18 years, presently the prosecutrix has already attained the marriageable age, applicant is ready to get married with the prosecutrix and he has been implicated only for the reason that the mother of the prosecutrix namely, Reshma, was not agreeable for such marriage, the mother of the prosecutrix who is present in the Court has stated that she has no objection if her daughter gets married with the applicant, she has also informed that her daughter has attained marriageable age, I find it appropriate that the present applicant be enlarged on bail.

8. As soon as he is released from jail he shall marry with the prosecutrix within a period of one month. Thereafter he shall get his marriage registered before the Marriage Registering Authority. He shall take care of the prosecutrix properly and if in any case it is found that the present applicant violates his undertaking, this bail order may be cancelled on application being filed on behalf of prosecutrix or the State. He shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

10. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

11. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant Zaheeruddin, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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 applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.may be issued and if the 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. . Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Om (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)