High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

3. The Vakalatnama of Sri Sri Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order-sheet about it.

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Arjun, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, under Sections 354C, 354D, 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad.

5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 05.09.2024 by the victim against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant was her maternal uncle from relation and as such used to visit her house. In the year 2018 when she was aged about 14 years he somehow captured her video while she was taking bath and started blackmailing her and established physical relation with her since long. He used to threaten her to make the video viral. He used to enrage her modesty. On 12.03.2024 she was married to one Kapil Singh after which he started interfering in her married life and tried to disrupt her life by interfering and contacting her husband and in-laws. Her marriage is at the verge of collapse. She is living in her maternal house. The first information report be lodged and action be taken.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present first information report is an extremely delayed version of the case as stated by the victim. It is submitted that the victim was married and since her marriage could not go on well a first information report was lodged by her against her husband and in-laws. It is submitted that subsequently the victim lodged the present first information report just in order to falsely implicate & harass the applicant. It is further submitted that the victim is a married and major woman. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 22 of the affidavit that except for the present case and the cases because of the present dispute, the applicant is not involved in any other criminal activity. The applicant is in jail since 07.09.2024.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are specific allegations against him. It is submitted that because of the act of the applicant the family life of the victim got disrupted. It is submitted that the prayer for bail be rejected.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first information report has been lodged after an inordinate delay. The victim is a major married woman. The applicant is also a married man. He has no other criminal antecedents except for the present dispute and the dispute arising out of the said issue.

9. 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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Arjun, 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 applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant 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 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. (iv) The applicant 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 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 I.P.C. (v) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. 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 applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

3. The Vakalatnama of Sri Sri Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order-sheet about it.

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Arjun, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, under Sections 354C, 354D, 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad.

5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 05.09.2024 by the victim against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant was her maternal uncle from relation and as such used to visit her house. In the year 2018 when she was aged about 14 years he somehow captured her video while she was taking bath and started blackmailing her and established physical relation with her since long. He used to threaten her to make the video viral. He used to enrage her modesty. On 12.03.2024 she was married to one Kapil Singh after which he started interfering in her married life and tried to disrupt her life by interfering and contacting her husband and in-laws. Her marriage is at the verge of collapse. She is living in her maternal house. The first information report be lodged and action be taken.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present first information report is an extremely delayed version of the case as stated by the victim. It is submitted that the victim was married and since her marriage could not go on well a first information report was lodged by her against her husband and in-laws. It is submitted that subsequently the victim lodged the present first information report just in order to falsely implicate & harass the applicant. It is further submitted that the victim is a married and major woman. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 22 of the affidavit that except for the present case and the cases because of the present dispute, the applicant is not involved in any other criminal activity. The applicant is in jail since 07.09.2024.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are specific allegations against him. It is submitted that because of the act of the applicant the family life of the victim got disrupted. It is submitted that the prayer for bail be rejected.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first information report has been lodged after an inordinate delay. The victim is a major married woman. The applicant is also a married man. He has no other criminal antecedents except for the present dispute and the dispute arising out of the said issue.

9. 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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Arjun, 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 applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant 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 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. (iv) The applicant 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 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 I.P.C. (v) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

11. 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 applicant to prison.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad