HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD v. Party

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Chaman Aara, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further argued that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 05.01.2024, whereas the F.I.R., has been lodged on 25.04.2024 without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. Learned counsel further argued that with regard to the same incident, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the informant, which has been dismissed inspite of the fact that ample opportunity was granted to the informant, copy of which order is at page no. 77 of the paper book. Learned counsel further argued that some hot talks were taken place between the applicant and the informant side, in which, both the sides were challaned under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further argued that the victim is minor. The allegations levelled against the applicant is not supported by the medical evidence 2 BAIL No. 31093 of 2024 and according to the medical report, hymen is old torn and in the opinion of the doctor, there is no sign of use of force. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of hot talk that took place between the family members. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also 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 and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 09.05.2023.

3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Ms. Chaman Aara, learned counsel for the informant further argued that the accused sister namely, Priyanka took the victim from her home on the pretext of watching movie but she instead of taking to the theatre, took the victim to her house, where the accused has committed rape upon the victim and that her photographs were also taken. Learned counsel further submits that the informant immediately rushed to lodge the F.I.R., but the same could not be lodged as such, under the constrained circumstances, the informant moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., against the accused persons on

16.04.2024, in the meantime, the informant came to know about the complaint cell, where the informant also moved an application and pursuant to which complaint, the F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons thus the delay which has 3 BAIL No. 31093 of 2024 occurred is not deliberate. She further submits that the applicant was blackmailing the victim to viral the photographs and under such threatening the applicant was committing rape upon her. Not barely this, the applicant viral the photographs of the victim on his own Facebook story, which is evident from the perusal of the photograph itself, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit. She further submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected credible evidence against the applicant for the offence under Section 67 of I.T. Act and in this regard, certificate under Section 65-B of Information Technology Act has also been issued to authenticate that the applicant has viral the photograph. It is thus contended that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

5. In reply to the submissions made by learned counsel for the informant, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no offence under Section 376 I.P.C., is made out against the applicant. He further submits that though there is a certification under Section 65-B of the Information Technology Act and even assuming but not admitting for the sake of argument that offence under I.T. Act is made out against the applicant, in which, the maximum sentence is three years, whereas the applicant has remained incarcerated for about one and a half year, thus the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

7. Let applicant Monu involved in Case Crime No. 114 of 2025 under Sections 376(3), 342, 120-B, 506, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli, be released on bail on 4 BAIL No. 31093 of 2024 furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

9. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) October 15, 2025 S.Ali SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Chaman Aara, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further argued that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 05.01.2024, whereas the F.I.R., has been lodged on 25.04.2024 without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. Learned counsel further argued that with regard to the same incident, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the informant, which has been dismissed inspite of the fact that ample opportunity was granted to the informant, copy of which order is at page no. 77 of the paper book. Learned counsel further argued that some hot talks were taken place between the applicant and the informant side, in which, both the sides were challaned under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further argued that the victim is minor. The allegations levelled against the applicant is not supported by the medical evidence 2 BAIL No. 31093 of 2024 and according to the medical report, hymen is old torn and in the opinion of the doctor, there is no sign of use of force. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of hot talk that took place between the family members. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also 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 and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 09.05.2023.

3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Ms. Chaman Aara, learned counsel for the informant further argued that the accused sister namely, Priyanka took the victim from her home on the pretext of watching movie but she instead of taking to the theatre, took the victim to her house, where the accused has committed rape upon the victim and that her photographs were also taken. Learned counsel further submits that the informant immediately rushed to lodge the F.I.R., but the same could not be lodged as such, under the constrained circumstances, the informant moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., against the accused persons on

16.04.2024, in the meantime, the informant came to know about the complaint cell, where the informant also moved an application and pursuant to which complaint, the F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons thus the delay which has 3 BAIL No. 31093 of 2024 occurred is not deliberate. She further submits that the applicant was blackmailing the victim to viral the photographs and under such threatening the applicant was committing rape upon her. Not barely this, the applicant viral the photographs of the victim on his own Facebook story, which is evident from the perusal of the photograph itself, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit. She further submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected credible evidence against the applicant for the offence under Section 67 of I.T. Act and in this regard, certificate under Section 65-B of Information Technology Act has also been issued to authenticate that the applicant has viral the photograph. It is thus contended that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

5. In reply to the submissions made by learned counsel for the informant, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no offence under Section 376 I.P.C., is made out against the applicant. He further submits that though there is a certification under Section 65-B of the Information Technology Act and even assuming but not admitting for the sake of argument that offence under I.T. Act is made out against the applicant, in which, the maximum sentence is three years, whereas the applicant has remained incarcerated for about one and a half year, thus the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

7. Let applicant Monu involved in Case Crime No. 114 of 2025 under Sections 376(3), 342, 120-B, 506, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli, be released on bail on 4 BAIL No. 31093 of 2024 furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

9. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) October 15, 2025 S.Ali SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad