High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. representing State- respondent No. 1 and perused the material available on record .

2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the NBW order dated 23.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Session Case No. 170/2020 (State Versus Pramod Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 120B I.P.C., 7/8 POCSO Act, 3(1)Ba(2) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Patherwa, District- Kushinagar, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Pocso Act, Court No.1, Kushinagar at Padrauna.

3. The present applicant has been released on bail, vide order dated 22.03.2021, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26671 of 2020. For ready reference, the order dated 22.03.2021 is quoted hereinbelow: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that the first information report of the alleged incident is delayed for which no plausible explanation has been given which itself falsify the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the only allegation levelled against the applicant is that he boarded victim on the train to Gorakhpur. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has 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. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.3.2020. It has been pointed out that the applicant has criminal history one case which has been duly explained in paragraph no.17 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let applicant- Govind Kushawaha, be released on bail in Case Crime No.64 of 2020, under Sections- 363, 366, 120-B IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Sectoon 3(1)Ba(2) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Pateharawa, District- Kushinagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.

3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment."

4. Subsequently, the present applicant has filed an Application U/S 482 No. 26422 of 2021 on 24.11.2021 assailing the cognizance order dated 06.05.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020 (State vs. Pramod Yadav and others) and charge sheet dated 5.5.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC, 7/8 POCSO Act, 3(1) and (2) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Patherwa, District Kushinagar as well as entire proceeding of Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020. While entertaining the aforesaid application under Section 482 CrPC, this Court has granted interim relief dated 05.04.2022 for not taking any coercive action against the present applicant till the next date of listing. For ready reference, order dated 05.04.2022 is quoted hereinbelow: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 6.5.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020 (State Vs. Pramod Yadav and others) and impugned charge sheet dated 5.5.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2020, under sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC, 7/8 (Pocso Act, 3(1)Ba(2) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Patherwa, District Kushinagar as well as entire proceeding of Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020 (state Vs. Pramod Yadav and others). It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that O.P. No. 2 lodged the FIR on 23.2.2020 in respect of the alleged occurrence taken place on 20.02.2020 at 09-11.00 A.M. i.e. after the delay of three days, there is no specific explanation of delay has been disclosed by the O.P No. 2 in the aforesaid application, therefore, itself prima facie, case seems totally false. Issue notice to O.P. No. 2 to file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant in the present case."

5. Interim order dated 05.04.2022 was limited until the next date of listing. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he has moved time extension application, however, no order could be passed on the aforesaid application.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that the interim order dated 05.04.2022 was never extended, therefore, non-bailable warrant dated 23.05.2025 passed by the trial court is valid and no interference is warranted in the aforesaid order.

7. After due deliberations at length, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he is not pursuing the instant application on merits. He has further submitted that the present applicant is willing and ready to co-operate with the courts below and participate in the court proceedings provided some interim protection may be granted to him. It is next submitted that the present applicant has never intended to ignore the court proceedings.

8. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has no objection if interim protection is granted to the present applicant to enable him to appear before the court below.

9. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present application, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present application, with a direction that the present applicant, in case, appears/surrenders and moves a bail application before the court below within a period of three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the court concerned in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks thereafter.

10. For a period of six weeks or till the decision on the bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicants.

11. As such, instant application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. representing State- respondent No. 1 and perused the material available on record .

2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the NBW order dated 23.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Session Case No. 170/2020 (State Versus Pramod Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 120B I.P.C., 7/8 POCSO Act, 3(1)Ba(2) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Patherwa, District- Kushinagar, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Pocso Act, Court No.1, Kushinagar at Padrauna.

3. The present applicant has been released on bail, vide order dated 22.03.2021, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26671 of 2020. For ready reference, the order dated 22.03.2021 is quoted hereinbelow: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that the first information report of the alleged incident is delayed for which no plausible explanation has been given which itself falsify the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the only allegation levelled against the applicant is that he boarded victim on the train to Gorakhpur. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has 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. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.3.2020. It has been pointed out that the applicant has criminal history one case which has been duly explained in paragraph no.17 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let applicant- Govind Kushawaha, be released on bail in Case Crime No.64 of 2020, under Sections- 363, 366, 120-B IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Sectoon 3(1)Ba(2) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Pateharawa, District- Kushinagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.

3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment."

4. Subsequently, the present applicant has filed an Application U/S 482 No. 26422 of 2021 on 24.11.2021 assailing the cognizance order dated 06.05.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020 (State vs. Pramod Yadav and others) and charge sheet dated 5.5.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC, 7/8 POCSO Act, 3(1) and (2) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Patherwa, District Kushinagar as well as entire proceeding of Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020. While entertaining the aforesaid application under Section 482 CrPC, this Court has granted interim relief dated 05.04.2022 for not taking any coercive action against the present applicant till the next date of listing. For ready reference, order dated 05.04.2022 is quoted hereinbelow: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 6.5.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020 (State Vs. Pramod Yadav and others) and impugned charge sheet dated 5.5.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2020, under sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC, 7/8 (Pocso Act, 3(1)Ba(2) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Patherwa, District Kushinagar as well as entire proceeding of Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020 (state Vs. Pramod Yadav and others). It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that O.P. No. 2 lodged the FIR on 23.2.2020 in respect of the alleged occurrence taken place on 20.02.2020 at 09-11.00 A.M. i.e. after the delay of three days, there is no specific explanation of delay has been disclosed by the O.P No. 2 in the aforesaid application, therefore, itself prima facie, case seems totally false. Issue notice to O.P. No. 2 to file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant in the present case."

5. Interim order dated 05.04.2022 was limited until the next date of listing. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he has moved time extension application, however, no order could be passed on the aforesaid application.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that the interim order dated 05.04.2022 was never extended, therefore, non-bailable warrant dated 23.05.2025 passed by the trial court is valid and no interference is warranted in the aforesaid order.

7. After due deliberations at length, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he is not pursuing the instant application on merits. He has further submitted that the present applicant is willing and ready to co-operate with the courts below and participate in the court proceedings provided some interim protection may be granted to him. It is next submitted that the present applicant has never intended to ignore the court proceedings.

8. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has no objection if interim protection is granted to the present applicant to enable him to appear before the court below.

9. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present application, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present application, with a direction that the present applicant, in case, appears/surrenders and moves a bail application before the court below within a period of three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the court concerned in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks thereafter.

10. For a period of six weeks or till the decision on the bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicants.

11. As such, instant application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad