High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Notice was issued to the first informant vide order dated 23.10.2024. As per office report dated 23.11.2024, the report of the CJM, Lalitpur dated 4.11.2024 has been received stating therein that notice has been served upon the first informant personally but no one appears on behalf of the first informant even when the matter is taken up in the revised list despite service of notice.

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ramlakhan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.232 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Banpur, District Lalitpur.

5. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 18.7.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16030 of 2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant while placing statement of the victim recorded as P.W.2 before the trial court has submitted that there are contradictions in the said statement. As per the statement of the victim, she was major at the time of the incident and as such no case is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted while placing statement of the father of the victim that even with regards to the age of the victim there are contradictions and after reading the statement it can be seen that there are evading explanation which would go to show that the victim is a major. The applicant is in jail since 15.1.2023.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.7.2023, the said order reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

3. Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, learned panel lawyer of the High Court Legal Service Committee is again not present today even when the the matter has been taken in revised list.

4. Notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 vide orders dated 3.5.2023 and 26.5.2023. As per office report dated 3.7.2023 notice has been served on the opposite party no. 2 through his wife as per report of C.J.M. concerned dated 27.6.2023 which is on record. Despite the same, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. Service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2 is sufficient.

5. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ram Lakhan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 232 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Banpur, District- Lalitpur.

6. On 4.7.2023 the following order was passed by this Court:- "1. List revised.

2. Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State are present.

3. Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, learned panel lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee is not present despite the matter being taken up in the revised list.

4. Registrar Compliance to intimate the Secretary of High Court Legal Services Committee for appropriate action within three days.

5. Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 26.05.2023. As per office report dated 03.07.2023, the report of the C.J.M., Lalitpur has been received stating therein that notice has been served on the wife of the first informant.

6. Perusal of the report dated 27.06.2023 of the C.J.M. concerned it is evident that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2. The police report dated 22.06.2023 is also enclosed with the said report of the C.J.M. stating that notice has been served. It is only 10 days since notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2.

7. In the interest of justice awaiting response to the said notice, the matter is adjourned for today.

8. Let the matter be listed on 18.07.2023 as fresh."

7. The F.I.R. of the present case was lodged on 20.12.2022 by Hargovind against the applicant alleging therein that on 19.12.2022 at about 11.00 P.M. his daughter aged about 14 years was sleeping with her younger daughter in a room from where on finding way the applicant allured her and enticed her away. Later on his younger daughter came to know of it then told him. He searched her a lot but she could not be traced.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim was recovered on 13.1.2023. It is further argued that the victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant was living in front of her house and she was knowing him since last one year and was in love with him. Her family members wanted her to marry someone else after which she and the applicant decided to run away and then on 19.12.2022 the applicant took her on a motorcycle after which they went to Gujarat where the applicant started working in a factory and they were living as husband and wife in a room. It is argued that the victim has reiterated the same story as stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but has further stated that physical relationship established between them was with her consent. It is argued although the prosecution case is relying upon the date of birth of the victim recorded in school recorded but the same is false and without any credible evidence. It is argued that the victim is major girl and she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will and lived there.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim as per her school records was aged about 15 years and 2 months and thus at the time of incident she was minor. It is argued that the applicant is stated to have established physical relationship with her and as such offence is made out. It is prayed that the bail application of the applicant be rejected.

10. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. of alluring and enticing away the minor daughter of the first informant. She was stated to be around 14 years in the F.I.R. As per school records she is aged about 15 years and 2 months. The applicant is also named in the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein there are allegations against him.

11. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

12. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

9. The trial in the matter is going on in which victim has been examined. She has supported the prosecution case. As per the records, the victim is a minor. There is evidence against the applicant. There is no fresh and new ground made out.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Notice was issued to the first informant vide order dated 23.10.2024. As per office report dated 23.11.2024, the report of the CJM, Lalitpur dated 4.11.2024 has been received stating therein that notice has been served upon the first informant personally but no one appears on behalf of the first informant even when the matter is taken up in the revised list despite service of notice.

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ramlakhan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.232 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Banpur, District Lalitpur.

5. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 18.7.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16030 of 2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant while placing statement of the victim recorded as P.W.2 before the trial court has submitted that there are contradictions in the said statement. As per the statement of the victim, she was major at the time of the incident and as such no case is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted while placing statement of the father of the victim that even with regards to the age of the victim there are contradictions and after reading the statement it can be seen that there are evading explanation which would go to show that the victim is a major. The applicant is in jail since 15.1.2023.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.7.2023, the said order reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

3. Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, learned panel lawyer of the High Court Legal Service Committee is again not present today even when the the matter has been taken in revised list.

4. Notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 vide orders dated 3.5.2023 and 26.5.2023. As per office report dated 3.7.2023 notice has been served on the opposite party no. 2 through his wife as per report of C.J.M. concerned dated 27.6.2023 which is on record. Despite the same, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. Service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2 is sufficient.

5. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ram Lakhan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 232 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Banpur, District- Lalitpur.

6. On 4.7.2023 the following order was passed by this Court:- "1. List revised.

2. Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State are present.

3. Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, learned panel lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee is not present despite the matter being taken up in the revised list.

4. Registrar Compliance to intimate the Secretary of High Court Legal Services Committee for appropriate action within three days.

5. Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 26.05.2023. As per office report dated 03.07.2023, the report of the C.J.M., Lalitpur has been received stating therein that notice has been served on the wife of the first informant.

6. Perusal of the report dated 27.06.2023 of the C.J.M. concerned it is evident that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2. The police report dated 22.06.2023 is also enclosed with the said report of the C.J.M. stating that notice has been served. It is only 10 days since notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2.

7. In the interest of justice awaiting response to the said notice, the matter is adjourned for today.

8. Let the matter be listed on 18.07.2023 as fresh."

7. The F.I.R. of the present case was lodged on 20.12.2022 by Hargovind against the applicant alleging therein that on 19.12.2022 at about 11.00 P.M. his daughter aged about 14 years was sleeping with her younger daughter in a room from where on finding way the applicant allured her and enticed her away. Later on his younger daughter came to know of it then told him. He searched her a lot but she could not be traced.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim was recovered on 13.1.2023. It is further argued that the victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant was living in front of her house and she was knowing him since last one year and was in love with him. Her family members wanted her to marry someone else after which she and the applicant decided to run away and then on 19.12.2022 the applicant took her on a motorcycle after which they went to Gujarat where the applicant started working in a factory and they were living as husband and wife in a room. It is argued that the victim has reiterated the same story as stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but has further stated that physical relationship established between them was with her consent. It is argued although the prosecution case is relying upon the date of birth of the victim recorded in school recorded but the same is false and without any credible evidence. It is argued that the victim is major girl and she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will and lived there.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the victim as per her school records was aged about 15 years and 2 months and thus at the time of incident she was minor. It is argued that the applicant is stated to have established physical relationship with her and as such offence is made out. It is prayed that the bail application of the applicant be rejected.

10. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. of alluring and enticing away the minor daughter of the first informant. She was stated to be around 14 years in the F.I.R. As per school records she is aged about 15 years and 2 months. The applicant is also named in the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein there are allegations against him.

11. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

12. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

9. The trial in the matter is going on in which victim has been examined. She has supported the prosecution case. As per the records, the victim is a minor. There is evidence against the applicant. There is no fresh and new ground made out.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad