Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27895 of 2025 Om State Of U.P. And 3 Others Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pankaj Satsangi : Ashish Singh, G.A. Court No. - 64 1. List revised. HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions in the matter for which time was granted to him on 14.08.2025. 4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Om, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 25 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Ughaiti, District Budaun. 5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 03.03.2025 by Chandrakesh against the applicant- Om alleging therein that on 03.03.2025 his daughter aged about 15 years had gone to the school to study. The applicant Om lured and enticed her away. She was searched at places but could not be traced. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which Chandrakesh has been examined as P.W.-1 who did not support the prosecution case and stated that the report as lodged by him mentions name of an accused which was on the saying of some person sitting when the report was being transcribed. It is submitted that the victim was examined as P.W.-2 before the trial court who did not 2 BAIL No. 27895 of 2025 support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that Smt. Asha the mother of the victim and the wife of the first informant has been examined as P.W.-3 before the trial court who has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant is false. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 06.03.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the first informant did not dispute the arguments as aforesaid. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the witnesses have been tampered with which would be evident from the fact that during investigation they have supported the prosecution case in full. It is submitted that as such appropriate directions be issued to the trial court to initiate appropriate proceedings against the said witnesses. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the trial in the matter has started in which the first informant Chandrakesh has not supported the prosecution case when examined as P.W.-1. The victim was examined as P.W.-2 who did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Smt. Asha the mother of the victim was examined as P.W.-3 before the trial court who also did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 11. Let the applicant- Om, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. 3 BAIL No. 27895 of 2025 (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 13. Since the prosecutrix has completely denied the prosecution version and has stated of her not going with the applicant and not doing any wrongful act on her, she is not entitled to the benefit of any compensation paid by the State Government which has been collected from the taxpayers of the country. The trial court will consider issuance of a direction against the prosecutrix to refund the amount received by her as compensation, if any, in the appropriate head of the treasury account. 14. However, it is directed that launching of prosecution against the victim be proceeded in view of para 11 of the judgment in the case of "Aman Vs. 4 BAIL No. 27895 of 2025 State of U.P. and 3 others" : Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41458 of 2023 dated 02.02.2024 which reads as under: "11. अतः न्यायालय यह आदेिशत करती है िक यिद पीिड़ता के प्ष ्षारा जो धन सरकार से िलया गया है, वह उसको ब्याज के साथ वापस करे और संबंिधत अधीनस्थ न्यायालय अगर यह पाती है िक िवप्षी प्ष ्षारा गलत मुकदमा िकया गया था, तो उनके िवरु्ध भी अिभयोजन की कायर्वाही की जाए। इस आदेश की एक ्ऺित संबंिधत अधीनस्थ न्यायालय एवं िजलािधकारी को ्ऺेिषत की जाए िक यिद वतर्मान ्ऺाथिमकी गलत पायी जाती है तो, पीिड़ता को िमले धन की राजस्व के रूप में वसूली करके सरकारी खाते में जमा करे और संबंिधत अधीनस्थ न्यायालय पीिड़ता एवं उसके प्ष के िवरु्ध अिभयोजन चलाये।" 15. The bail application is allowed.
Decision
16. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 4, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad