High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Vivek Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogendra Gupta, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2024, under Sections 74, 115(2) of BNS and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Tindwari, District - Banda, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, on 03.07.2024 at about 10:00 AM, the applicant is stated to have caught hold of the informant/victim and outraged her modesty by touching her inappropriately. The co-accused Sant Ram is stated to be the eye- witness to the incident but he did not raise any alarm. The mother and father of the victim are stated to have reached there and had got the victim released from the clutches of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by more than 10 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that there are several inconsistencies in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS to the FIR. There is no injury report to corroborate the prosecution story as the victim has stated that the applicant had bitten on her lips, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim, who is minor aged about 15 years, has been assaulted by the applicant. An application was moved by the informant before the District Magistrate concerned stating that the applicant was pressurizing her to get the matter settled otherwise, he shall get her falsely implicated in a case.

9. Learned counsel for the informant has placed much reliance on the judgement of Sikkim High Court passed in Lopsong Lama Yolmo Vs. State of Sikkim, AIRONLINE 2021 SK 36 and has referred the relevant paras no. 5 & 7 of the said judgement, which read as under:- "5. It is now well settled that the circumstances which are to be factored in while considering an application for bail are; (i) existence of prima facie case against the accused, (ii) the nature and gravity of the accusations, (iii) the penalty likely to be imposed, (iv) chances of the accused absconding on being enlarged on bail, (v) the antecedents and standing of the accused in society; (vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence, (vii) reasonable apprehension of evidence being tampered with and witnesses being influenced; and (viii) the course of justice being defeated by grant of bail. On the anvil of these factors, I have given due consideration to the FIR and the medical documents on record. ....

7. The Doctor vide his Communication supra, has observed that the Petitioner has been on medication for his ailments reflected therein, for many years. He has also recorded that the Petitioner's condition is stable. The Doctor apprehends a Hypoglycemic attack which, according to him, requires to be managed immediately on its occurrence. It is worth observing here that presently there is no immediate threat to his life. All his ailments are under control and well managed by medication. The gravity of the offence is necessarily to be taken into consideration by this Court and the acts of the Petitioner are indeed heinous Lopsong Lama Yolmo vs. State of Sikkim having been perpetrated on a minor under his care and guidance. The next consideration would be the likelihood of the Petitioner fleeing from justice and his tampering with the Prosecution evidence. There was no denial of the allegation that efforts were being made to influence the Complainant by people from various walks of life known to the Petitioner. Moreover, his efforts at tampering with the witnesses is writ large in the form of the copy of the Letter placed before this Court, discussed hereinabove. No one however high he may be, is above the law and merely by stating that he is a Politician and an elected Councillor, does not entitle him to be enlarged on bail sans consideration of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. These considerations weigh directly for ensuring a fair trial in the concerned Court, thus due and proper weight ought to be bestowed on the two factors reflected supra. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the evidence furnished at this stage and circumstances peculiar to the Petitioner in terms of his position in society, a reasonable possibility exists of the presence of the Petitioner not being secured at the trial, besides, likelihood of the offence being repeated. It is also noted that he has been in Hospital from 04.03.2021, a day after lodging of the FIR which is about forty four days as on today i.e. 16.04.2021. He cannot attempt to thwart the course of justice by staying in the Hospital endlessly."

10. While referring the aforesaid judgement, learned counsel for the informant has argued that the bail application of the accused was rejected on the same ground. It is further stated that in the instant case, looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation, there is every likelihood of repetition of offence by the applicant and also there is reasonable apprehension of evidence being tampered with and witnesses being influenced by the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that there is no receipt of the application moved before the District Magistrate office coupled by the fact that there is no injury sustained by the victim, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant- Shahrukh, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

14. 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. Order Date:- 22.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Vivek Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogendra Gupta, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2024, under Sections 74, 115(2) of BNS and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Tindwari, District - Banda, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, on 03.07.2024 at about 10:00 AM, the applicant is stated to have caught hold of the informant/victim and outraged her modesty by touching her inappropriately. The co-accused Sant Ram is stated to be the eye- witness to the incident but he did not raise any alarm. The mother and father of the victim are stated to have reached there and had got the victim released from the clutches of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by more than 10 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that there are several inconsistencies in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS to the FIR. There is no injury report to corroborate the prosecution story as the victim has stated that the applicant had bitten on her lips, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim, who is minor aged about 15 years, has been assaulted by the applicant. An application was moved by the informant before the District Magistrate concerned stating that the applicant was pressurizing her to get the matter settled otherwise, he shall get her falsely implicated in a case.

9. Learned counsel for the informant has placed much reliance on the judgement of Sikkim High Court passed in Lopsong Lama Yolmo Vs. State of Sikkim, AIRONLINE 2021 SK 36 and has referred the relevant paras no. 5 & 7 of the said judgement, which read as under:- "5. It is now well settled that the circumstances which are to be factored in while considering an application for bail are; (i) existence of prima facie case against the accused, (ii) the nature and gravity of the accusations, (iii) the penalty likely to be imposed, (iv) chances of the accused absconding on being enlarged on bail, (v) the antecedents and standing of the accused in society; (vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence, (vii) reasonable apprehension of evidence being tampered with and witnesses being influenced; and (viii) the course of justice being defeated by grant of bail. On the anvil of these factors, I have given due consideration to the FIR and the medical documents on record. ....

7. The Doctor vide his Communication supra, has observed that the Petitioner has been on medication for his ailments reflected therein, for many years. He has also recorded that the Petitioner's condition is stable. The Doctor apprehends a Hypoglycemic attack which, according to him, requires to be managed immediately on its occurrence. It is worth observing here that presently there is no immediate threat to his life. All his ailments are under control and well managed by medication. The gravity of the offence is necessarily to be taken into consideration by this Court and the acts of the Petitioner are indeed heinous Lopsong Lama Yolmo vs. State of Sikkim having been perpetrated on a minor under his care and guidance. The next consideration would be the likelihood of the Petitioner fleeing from justice and his tampering with the Prosecution evidence. There was no denial of the allegation that efforts were being made to influence the Complainant by people from various walks of life known to the Petitioner. Moreover, his efforts at tampering with the witnesses is writ large in the form of the copy of the Letter placed before this Court, discussed hereinabove. No one however high he may be, is above the law and merely by stating that he is a Politician and an elected Councillor, does not entitle him to be enlarged on bail sans consideration of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. These considerations weigh directly for ensuring a fair trial in the concerned Court, thus due and proper weight ought to be bestowed on the two factors reflected supra. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the evidence furnished at this stage and circumstances peculiar to the Petitioner in terms of his position in society, a reasonable possibility exists of the presence of the Petitioner not being secured at the trial, besides, likelihood of the offence being repeated. It is also noted that he has been in Hospital from 04.03.2021, a day after lodging of the FIR which is about forty four days as on today i.e. 16.04.2021. He cannot attempt to thwart the course of justice by staying in the Hospital endlessly."

10. While referring the aforesaid judgement, learned counsel for the informant has argued that the bail application of the accused was rejected on the same ground. It is further stated that in the instant case, looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation, there is every likelihood of repetition of offence by the applicant and also there is reasonable apprehension of evidence being tampered with and witnesses being influenced by the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that there is no receipt of the application moved before the District Magistrate office coupled by the fact that there is no injury sustained by the victim, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant- Shahrukh, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

14. 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. Order Date:- 22.7.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad