High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person with regard to kidnapping of daughter of the informant aged about 9 years under Section 363 IPC on

08.10.2019 but after recovery of her dead body from a well case was converted under Sections 302, 201 IPC and when during investigation, it could not be revealed, who caused death of the deceased then final report was submitted and during pendency of final report, informant of the case on

18.02.2020 filed a criminal complaint against the applicant and co-accused Seema and in the complaint case filed by the complainant on 21.07.2023, applicant has been summoned in the present matter.

4. He further submitted that as per allegation, after committing rape with the daughter of the informant aged about 9 years, applicant committed her murder but except the bald and verbal allegation, there is no cogent evidence in this regard on record. He further submitted that even from the summoning order dated 21.08.2023, it reflects, all the witnesses tried to give the evidence of last seen against the applicant but merely on the basis of such evidence, it cannot be said that applicant, after committing rape, committed the murder of the deceased.

5. He further submitted that even from the post-mortem report, it could not be reflected that deceased was raped and from the post-mortem report, it reflects, she did not sustain any external injury and she died due to drowning and, therefore, from the record and post-mortem report, it reflects, it is a case of accidental drowning.

6. He further submitted that actually earlier applicant has been made accused in a case of murder of the mother of the deceased along with others, in which, he was convicted, therefore, only due to above enmity, he has been roped in the present matter too. He further submitted that, however, applicant is a convicted person but there is absolutely no evidence against the applicant, which can connect him with the instant crime.

7. He further submitted that applicant has been summoned in a complaint case, therefore, merely on the basis of his criminal antecedent, his bail application should not be dismissed.

8. He further submitted that except the present case and one another case relates to the murder of mother of the deceased, applicant is having no other criminal history.

9. He further submitted that however present case is of the year 2020 but applicant has been summoned in the complaint case in July, 2023 and thereafter he approached this Court in Application U/s 482 No. 25833 of 2024 and, however, his application was dismissed on 29.11.2024 and thereafter he approached the court concerned on 08.01.2025, therefore, he is not an absconder.

10. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case, in which, nine years' old daughter of the informant firstly raped and thereafter she was murdered and, therefore, allegation against the applicant is quite serious but they could not dispute the fact that nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation, it could not be reflected that who committed the alleged offence and thereafter final report has been submitted and after that on the basis of complaint case, applicant has been summoned. They also could not dispute, from the complaint and statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C., it reflects, except the evidence of last seen, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

12. They although further submitted that applicant is a previous convict in a case of murder but could not dispute the fact that in that case appeal of the applicant is pending and he is on bail and after several years, he has been made accused in the present matter. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant has been summoned in the present matter in a complaint case.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, as per allegation, daughter of the informant aged about 9 years was firstly raped and thereafter she was murdered but nobody was named in the FIR, which was lodged in October 2019 and even during investigation, it could not be revealed that who committed the alleged offence and thereafter final report was submitted but it reflects, after submission of final report, in the year 2020 a criminal complaint was filed against the applicant and co- accused Seema and in the complaint case, applicant was summoned in the year 2023 and it reflects, after that applicant challenged the summoning order before this court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. but when in November 2024, his application was dismissed then he appeared before the trial court on

08.01.2025.

15. Further, as far as merit of the present case is concerned, it appears, except the evidence of last seen, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant, which can connect him with the instant crime and even evidence of last seen provided by witnesses appeared to be quite shaky and unconvincing. Even the Apex Court in the cases of Kanhaiyalal vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 and Rambraksh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2016) 12 SCC 251, observed that merely on the basis of last seen evidence, it is not possible to convict a person.

16. Further, even from the post-mortem report, prima facie it could not be reflected that deceased was subjected to any rape and as per post-mortem report, deceased died due to drowning, therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie, it appears to be a case of accidental drowning and only due to previous enmity, applicant has been roped in the present matter, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case of Section 302 IPC for murder of husband of the complainant i.e. mother of the deceased and in that case, applicant has also been convicted but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on this ground without any cogent and admissible evidence, applicant should not be detained in jail and his bail application should not be withheld.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Ramji be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person with regard to kidnapping of daughter of the informant aged about 9 years under Section 363 IPC on

08.10.2019 but after recovery of her dead body from a well case was converted under Sections 302, 201 IPC and when during investigation, it could not be revealed, who caused death of the deceased then final report was submitted and during pendency of final report, informant of the case on

18.02.2020 filed a criminal complaint against the applicant and co-accused Seema and in the complaint case filed by the complainant on 21.07.2023, applicant has been summoned in the present matter.

4. He further submitted that as per allegation, after committing rape with the daughter of the informant aged about 9 years, applicant committed her murder but except the bald and verbal allegation, there is no cogent evidence in this regard on record. He further submitted that even from the summoning order dated 21.08.2023, it reflects, all the witnesses tried to give the evidence of last seen against the applicant but merely on the basis of such evidence, it cannot be said that applicant, after committing rape, committed the murder of the deceased.

5. He further submitted that even from the post-mortem report, it could not be reflected that deceased was raped and from the post-mortem report, it reflects, she did not sustain any external injury and she died due to drowning and, therefore, from the record and post-mortem report, it reflects, it is a case of accidental drowning.

6. He further submitted that actually earlier applicant has been made accused in a case of murder of the mother of the deceased along with others, in which, he was convicted, therefore, only due to above enmity, he has been roped in the present matter too. He further submitted that, however, applicant is a convicted person but there is absolutely no evidence against the applicant, which can connect him with the instant crime.

7. He further submitted that applicant has been summoned in a complaint case, therefore, merely on the basis of his criminal antecedent, his bail application should not be dismissed.

8. He further submitted that except the present case and one another case relates to the murder of mother of the deceased, applicant is having no other criminal history.

9. He further submitted that however present case is of the year 2020 but applicant has been summoned in the complaint case in July, 2023 and thereafter he approached this Court in Application U/s 482 No. 25833 of 2024 and, however, his application was dismissed on 29.11.2024 and thereafter he approached the court concerned on 08.01.2025, therefore, he is not an absconder.

10. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case, in which, nine years' old daughter of the informant firstly raped and thereafter she was murdered and, therefore, allegation against the applicant is quite serious but they could not dispute the fact that nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation, it could not be reflected that who committed the alleged offence and thereafter final report has been submitted and after that on the basis of complaint case, applicant has been summoned. They also could not dispute, from the complaint and statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C., it reflects, except the evidence of last seen, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

12. They although further submitted that applicant is a previous convict in a case of murder but could not dispute the fact that in that case appeal of the applicant is pending and he is on bail and after several years, he has been made accused in the present matter. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant has been summoned in the present matter in a complaint case.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, as per allegation, daughter of the informant aged about 9 years was firstly raped and thereafter she was murdered but nobody was named in the FIR, which was lodged in October 2019 and even during investigation, it could not be revealed that who committed the alleged offence and thereafter final report was submitted but it reflects, after submission of final report, in the year 2020 a criminal complaint was filed against the applicant and co- accused Seema and in the complaint case, applicant was summoned in the year 2023 and it reflects, after that applicant challenged the summoning order before this court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. but when in November 2024, his application was dismissed then he appeared before the trial court on

08.01.2025.

15. Further, as far as merit of the present case is concerned, it appears, except the evidence of last seen, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant, which can connect him with the instant crime and even evidence of last seen provided by witnesses appeared to be quite shaky and unconvincing. Even the Apex Court in the cases of Kanhaiyalal vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 and Rambraksh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2016) 12 SCC 251, observed that merely on the basis of last seen evidence, it is not possible to convict a person.

16. Further, even from the post-mortem report, prima facie it could not be reflected that deceased was subjected to any rape and as per post-mortem report, deceased died due to drowning, therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie, it appears to be a case of accidental drowning and only due to previous enmity, applicant has been roped in the present matter, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case of Section 302 IPC for murder of husband of the complainant i.e. mother of the deceased and in that case, applicant has also been convicted but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on this ground without any cogent and admissible evidence, applicant should not be detained in jail and his bail application should not be withheld.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Ramji be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad