High Court · 2025

1. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20453 of 2024, copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.65 of 2024, under Sections 376 & 506 IPC and 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. As per allegation, when the informant went to the market, the applicant, who is the tenant of the informant, has committed rape upon minor daughter of the informant, who is aged about 8 years.

5. Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. FIR is highly delayed about 8 days. The applicant is the tenant of the informant and some dispute regarding rent of house has taken place due to which the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further contention is that the medical report is also not supported the prosecution story because as per medical report, no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. Further contention is that there are eight prosecution witnesses out of them only three prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution story and have declared turn hostile. Further contention is that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial as till now only three prosecution witnesses have been examined and still five witnesses are to be examined, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before this Court. According to the counsel, the circumstances which aled to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.02.2024 having no previous criminal history.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that during investigation the informant and victim have fully supported the prosecution story but during trial they have not supported the prosecution story and became hostile. However, it is submitted that since the informant and victim have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, it is clear that either the FIR has been lodged by the informant falsely implicating the applicant or other witnesses have not narrated the truth before the Court, therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 344 Cr.P.C.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

9. Let the applicant-Mukesh Gupta, involved in the aforesaid case 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 : (i) The applicant 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. (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 IPC. (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 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 IPC. (iv) The applicant 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 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 Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

12. So far as the contention of learned AGA for the State that the informant is liable for prosecution is concerned, the trial Court is directed to deal with this aspect at the time of final hearing and shall pass necessary order in this regard.

13. With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Ajeet AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20453 of 2024, copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.65 of 2024, under Sections 376 & 506 IPC and 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. As per allegation, when the informant went to the market, the applicant, who is the tenant of the informant, has committed rape upon minor daughter of the informant, who is aged about 8 years.

5. Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. FIR is highly delayed about 8 days. The applicant is the tenant of the informant and some dispute regarding rent of house has taken place due to which the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further contention is that the medical report is also not supported the prosecution story because as per medical report, no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. Further contention is that there are eight prosecution witnesses out of them only three prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution story and have declared turn hostile. Further contention is that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial as till now only three prosecution witnesses have been examined and still five witnesses are to be examined, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before this Court. According to the counsel, the circumstances which aled to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.02.2024 having no previous criminal history.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that during investigation the informant and victim have fully supported the prosecution story but during trial they have not supported the prosecution story and became hostile. However, it is submitted that since the informant and victim have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, it is clear that either the FIR has been lodged by the informant falsely implicating the applicant or other witnesses have not narrated the truth before the Court, therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 344 Cr.P.C.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

9. Let the applicant-Mukesh Gupta, involved in the aforesaid case 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 : (i) The applicant 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. (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 IPC. (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 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 IPC. (iv) The applicant 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 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 Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

12. So far as the contention of learned AGA for the State that the informant is liable for prosecution is concerned, the trial Court is directed to deal with this aspect at the time of final hearing and shall pass necessary order in this regard.

13. With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Ajeet AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad