In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
1. learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2024, under Sections 3. 74, 351(2), 352, 333, 64(1) of BNS, Police Station - Barhaj, District - Deoria, during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have barged into 4. the house of the informant on 02.07.2024 at about 04:00 PM and had touched the victim in an inappropriate manner, as such, outraged her modesty.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely 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 about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. Learned counsel has also stated that the FIR was instituted regarding the outraging of modesty only but subsequently the allegations have been escalated to that of rape in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS. The said statement of the victim has been recorded after legal consultations.
7. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant was enlarged on interim bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 and the following order was passed:- "1. व्ቔ(cid:3)मान दाቄኌ(cid:10)(cid:11)क ्ቚकी्ቓ(cid:3) जमान्ቔ ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:3)ना प्ቔ, आवेदक की ओर से मु०अ०सं० 182 व्ቧ(cid:3) 2024, अन््ቔ्ቇ(cid:3)्ቔ धारा 74, 351(2), 352, 333, 64(1) बी०एन०एस०, ्ቕाना बरहज, जिजला देवरिरया में जमान्ቔ पर मु्ሹ करने हे्ቔु ्ቚस््ቔु्ቔ किकया ्ቇया है।
2. सं्ቌेप में अभि1योजन क्ቕानक इस ्ቚकार से है किक किदनाँक 2.7.2024 की शायं 4.00 बजे वादी मुकदमा के ्ቇाँव का सौर1 िሺसह पु्ቔ महेश िሺसह ने वादी की पु्ቔी को घर में घुसकर पकड़ लिलया ्ቔ्ቕा संवेदनशील अं्ቇों को पकड़ा जिजससे उसकी पु्ቔी चि>्ቤाई ्ቔो वादी और उसकी पत्नी घर में ्ቇये ्ቔो ्ቇाली ्ቇु्ा व जान से मारने की धमकी दे्ቔे हुए 1ा्ቇ ्ቇया। इससे पहले 1ी यह वादी की बेटी का रिरश््ቔा ्ቔुड़वा >ुका है।
3. आवेदक की ओर से किव्ቛान अचिधव्ሹा एवं राज्य की ओर से किव्ቛान अपर शासकीय अचिधव्ሹा को सुना एवं प्ቔावली का परिरशीलन किकया।
4. आवेदक के किव्ቛान अचिधव्ሹा ने ्ቔक(cid:3) ्ቚस््ቔु्ቔ किकया किक आवेदक को इस ्ቚकर्ቓ में ्ቇल्ቔ एवं फजI ढं्ቇ से झूठा फंसाया ्ቇया है, उसने कभि्ቕ्ቔ अपराध कारिर्ቔ नहीं किकया है। ्ቚ्ቕम सू>ना रिरपोट(cid:3) किवलम्ब से दज(cid:3) करायी ्ቇयी है जिजसके किवलम्ब का कोई समुचि>्ቔ स्प्ቖीकर्ቓ अभि1योजन की ओर से नहीं किदया ्ቇया है। आवेदक ्ቛारा पीकिड़्ቔा के सा्ቕ ्ቇल्ቔ काम नहीं किकया ्ቇया है एवं न ही किकसी 1ी ्ቚकार की धमकी दी ्ቇयी है। पीचि(cid:11)्ቔा शादी-शुदा मकिहला है एवं उसके पचि्ቔ ने उससे रिरश््ቔा खत्म कर लिलया है ्ቔ्ቕा अल्ቇ किनवास कर्ቔी है। पीकिड़्ቔा वयस्क है।
5. दौरान बहस आवेदक के किव्ቛान अचिधव्ሹा ्ቛारा क्ቕन किकया ्ቇया है किक आवेदक पीकिड़्ቔा के सा्ቕ शादी करने के लिलए ्ቔैयार है, यकिद पीकिड़्ቔा आवेदक के सा्ቕ शादी करने के लिलए सहम्ቔ है ्ቔो आवेदक जेल से छूटने के प्ቐा्ቔ एक माह के अन्दर पीचि(cid:11)्ቔा से शादी कर ले्ቇा। आवेदक किनदT्ቧ है ्ቔ्ቕा वह इस ्ቚकर्ቓ में किद० 6.7.2024 से कारा्ቇार में किनरु्ቍ है। ऐसी दशा में आवेदक का जमान्ቔ ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:3)ना प्ቔ स्वीकार किकये जाने योग्य है।
6. इसके किवपरी्ቔ किव्ቛान अपर शासकीय अचिधव्ሹा ्ቛारा जमान्ቔ का किवरोध किकया ्ቇया।
7. ्ቚकर्ቓ के समस््ቔ ्ቔथ्य एवं परिरቄኌस््ቕचि्ቔयों ्ቔ्ቕा प्ቌकारों के किव्ቛान अचिधव्ሹा के ्ቔकZ को दृकि्ቖ्ቇ्ቔ रख्ቔे हुए ्ቔ्ቕा ्ቚस््ቔु्ቔ मामले के ्ቇु्ቓ-दो्ቧ पर किबना कोई किटप्प्ቓी किकये न्यायालय के किव>ार से आवेदक को अं्ቔरिरम जमान्ቔ पर छोड़ना उचि>्ቔ ्ቚ्ቔी्ቔ हो्ቔा है।
8. ्ቔदनुसार आवेदक सौर1 िሺसह को अकि]म किनय्ቔ चि्ቔभि्ቕ ्ቔक उपरो्ሹ अपराध में किनम्न श्ቔZ के सा्ቕ सम्बቄኌन्ध्ቔ न्यायालय की सन््ቔुकि्ቖ पर व्यकि्ሹ्ቇ्ቔ बंध प्ቔ एवं उसी धनराभिश के दो ्ቚचि्ቔ1ू ्ቚस््ቔु्ቔ करने पर अं्ቔरिरम जमान्ቔ पर छो(cid:11) किदया जाए। (i). आवेदक किव>ार्ቓ के दौरान सम्बቄኌन्ध्ቔ न्यायालय के सम्ቌ उपቄኌस््ቕ्ቔ रहे्ቇा। (ii). आवेदक ्ቇवाहान को किकसी 1ी ्ቚकार से ्ቚ1ाकिव्ቔ नहीं करे्ቇा। (iii). आवेदक किव>ार्ቓ के दौरान साቌኚय से कोई छेड़-छाड़ नहीं करे्ቇा।
9. यकिद आवेदक ्ቛारा उपरो्ሹ श्ቔZ का उ्ቤंघन किकया जा्ቔा है, ्ቔो किव>ार्ቓ न्यायालय को यह छूट रहे्ቇी किक वह आवेदक की अं्ቔरिरम जमान्ቔ किनरस््ቔ कर सके्ቇा।
10. इस वाद को किदनांक 18.12.2024 को नवीनवाद के रूप में सू>ीब्ቍ किकया जाए।
11. यहां यह 1ी आदेभिश्ቔ किकया जा्ቔा है किक अकि]म किनय्ቔ चि्ቔभि्ቕ को आवेदक सौर1 िሺसह एवं पीकिड़्ቔा अपनी शादी के ऑनलाइन पंजीकृ्ቔ ्ቚमा्ቓ प्ቔ के सा्ቕ व्यकि्ሹ्ቇ्ቔ रूप से इस न्यायालय के सम्ቌ उपቄኌस््ቕ्ቔ रहें्ቇे।
12. यहाँ यह 1ी आदेभिश्ቔ किकया जा्ቔा है आवेदक, पीकिड़्ቔा के घर जाकर इस आदेश की ्ቚचि्ቔलिलकिप (सू>ना) को व्यकि्ሹ्ቇ्ቔ ्ቔौर पर उपलब्ध कराए।"
8. Subsequent to it, it was learnt that the victim has expired on 18.08.2024 but the said fact stands fortified from the death certificate, which has been filed by means of short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant.
9. Learned counsel has further stated that the interim bail granted to the applicant has been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 and the following order was passed:- “On the matter being taken up, at the outset, learned counsel for the complainant (father of the victim) submits that the victim had already died on 18.08.2024 but concealing the said fact, order of interim bail has been obtained by the applicant vide order dated 22.11.2024 on the pretext that he is willing to solemnize marriage with the victim. On putting query in this regard, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant was in jail since 06.07.2024, therefore, he was not aware about the fact relating to death of the victim on 18.08.2024. Under the circumstances, there is no question of compliance of direction given in the order dated 22.11.2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that interim bail granted to the applicant by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 is not liable to be extended. The applicant is directed to surrender before the concerned Court below within 48 hours, so that his bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. may be heard on merits, failing which, the concerned Court below shall take coercive steps against the applicant to ensure his surrender. Let this matter be listed on 04.02.2025. In the meantime, the applicant shall file an affidavit of surrender alongwith certificate of his surrender issued by the concerned Jail authority. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below within 48 hours.”
10. Learned counsel has contended that the applicant is entitled for bail as the victim has expired and there is nothing on record to suggest that the death of the victim has been caused by him or the victim has committed suicide on his abetment rather it seems to be a case of honour killing. Learned counsel has further argued that the victim was a married 11. lady and it is alleged that the applicant had even gone to her in-laws’ house and committed rape there also. Her in-laws had seen the applicant along with her and even discarded her and sent her off to her parental home.
12. Learned counsel has lastly stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. Criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
13. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has not come up with clean hands as it was very much in his knowledge that the deceased has expired on 18.08.2024 and the said order dated 22.11.2024 was taken by concealing the said fact and misleading the court. Although the applicant surrendered subsequently but he enjoyed the said interim bail, as such, he is not entitled for regular bail whatsoever at this stage.
14. Learned counsel for the informant has also argued that the life of the deceased person was ruined, as such, she had expired as she went into depression due to the said act of the applicant. She had also stopped taking any food whatsoever.
15. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the instant case seems to be that of consent as initially the FIR was instituted regarding outraging the modesty only, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
17. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant-
18. Saurabh Singh, 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
19. ground for cancellation of bail.
20. 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:- 15.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1. learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2024, under Sections 3. 74, 351(2), 352, 333, 64(1) of BNS, Police Station - Barhaj, District - Deoria, during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have barged into 4. the house of the informant on 02.07.2024 at about 04:00 PM and had touched the victim in an inappropriate manner, as such, outraged her modesty.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely 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 about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. Learned counsel has also stated that the FIR was instituted regarding the outraging of modesty only but subsequently the allegations have been escalated to that of rape in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS. The said statement of the victim has been recorded after legal consultations.
7. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant was enlarged on interim bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 and the following order was passed:- "1. व्ቔ(cid:3)मान दाቄኌ(cid:10)(cid:11)क ्ቚकी्ቓ(cid:3) जमान्ቔ ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:3)ना प्ቔ, आवेदक की ओर से मु०अ०सं० 182 व्ቧ(cid:3) 2024, अन््ቔ्ቇ(cid:3)्ቔ धारा 74, 351(2), 352, 333, 64(1) बी०एन०एस०, ्ቕाना बरहज, जिजला देवरिरया में जमान्ቔ पर मु्ሹ करने हे्ቔु ्ቚस््ቔु्ቔ किकया ्ቇया है।
2. सं्ቌेप में अभि1योजन क्ቕानक इस ्ቚकार से है किक किदनाँक 2.7.2024 की शायं 4.00 बजे वादी मुकदमा के ्ቇाँव का सौर1 िሺसह पु्ቔ महेश िሺसह ने वादी की पु्ቔी को घर में घुसकर पकड़ लिलया ्ቔ्ቕा संवेदनशील अं्ቇों को पकड़ा जिजससे उसकी पु्ቔी चि>्ቤाई ्ቔो वादी और उसकी पत्नी घर में ्ቇये ्ቔो ्ቇाली ्ቇु्ा व जान से मारने की धमकी दे्ቔे हुए 1ा्ቇ ्ቇया। इससे पहले 1ी यह वादी की बेटी का रिरश््ቔा ्ቔुड़वा >ुका है।
3. आवेदक की ओर से किव्ቛान अचिधव्ሹा एवं राज्य की ओर से किव्ቛान अपर शासकीय अचिधव्ሹा को सुना एवं प्ቔावली का परिरशीलन किकया।
4. आवेदक के किव्ቛान अचिधव्ሹा ने ्ቔक(cid:3) ्ቚस््ቔु्ቔ किकया किक आवेदक को इस ्ቚकर्ቓ में ्ቇल्ቔ एवं फजI ढं्ቇ से झूठा फंसाया ्ቇया है, उसने कभि्ቕ्ቔ अपराध कारिर्ቔ नहीं किकया है। ्ቚ्ቕम सू>ना रिरपोट(cid:3) किवलम्ब से दज(cid:3) करायी ्ቇयी है जिजसके किवलम्ब का कोई समुचि>्ቔ स्प्ቖीकर्ቓ अभि1योजन की ओर से नहीं किदया ्ቇया है। आवेदक ्ቛारा पीकिड़्ቔा के सा्ቕ ्ቇल्ቔ काम नहीं किकया ्ቇया है एवं न ही किकसी 1ी ्ቚकार की धमकी दी ्ቇयी है। पीचि(cid:11)्ቔा शादी-शुदा मकिहला है एवं उसके पचि्ቔ ने उससे रिरश््ቔा खत्म कर लिलया है ्ቔ्ቕा अल्ቇ किनवास कर्ቔी है। पीकिड़्ቔा वयस्क है।
5. दौरान बहस आवेदक के किव्ቛान अचिधव्ሹा ्ቛारा क्ቕन किकया ्ቇया है किक आवेदक पीकिड़्ቔा के सा्ቕ शादी करने के लिलए ्ቔैयार है, यकिद पीकिड़्ቔा आवेदक के सा्ቕ शादी करने के लिलए सहम्ቔ है ्ቔो आवेदक जेल से छूटने के प्ቐा्ቔ एक माह के अन्दर पीचि(cid:11)्ቔा से शादी कर ले्ቇा। आवेदक किनदT्ቧ है ्ቔ्ቕा वह इस ्ቚकर्ቓ में किद० 6.7.2024 से कारा्ቇार में किनरु्ቍ है। ऐसी दशा में आवेदक का जमान्ቔ ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:3)ना प्ቔ स्वीकार किकये जाने योग्य है।
6. इसके किवपरी्ቔ किव्ቛान अपर शासकीय अचिधव्ሹा ्ቛारा जमान्ቔ का किवरोध किकया ्ቇया।
7. ्ቚकर्ቓ के समस््ቔ ्ቔथ्य एवं परिरቄኌस््ቕचि्ቔयों ्ቔ्ቕा प्ቌकारों के किव्ቛान अचिधव्ሹा के ्ቔकZ को दृकि्ቖ्ቇ्ቔ रख्ቔे हुए ्ቔ्ቕा ्ቚस््ቔु्ቔ मामले के ्ቇु्ቓ-दो्ቧ पर किबना कोई किटप्प्ቓी किकये न्यायालय के किव>ार से आवेदक को अं्ቔरिरम जमान्ቔ पर छोड़ना उचि>्ቔ ्ቚ्ቔी्ቔ हो्ቔा है।
8. ्ቔदनुसार आवेदक सौर1 िሺसह को अकि]म किनय्ቔ चि्ቔभि्ቕ ्ቔक उपरो्ሹ अपराध में किनम्न श्ቔZ के सा्ቕ सम्बቄኌन्ध्ቔ न्यायालय की सन््ቔुकि्ቖ पर व्यकि्ሹ्ቇ्ቔ बंध प्ቔ एवं उसी धनराभिश के दो ्ቚचि्ቔ1ू ्ቚस््ቔु्ቔ करने पर अं्ቔरिरम जमान्ቔ पर छो(cid:11) किदया जाए। (i). आवेदक किव>ार्ቓ के दौरान सम्बቄኌन्ध्ቔ न्यायालय के सम्ቌ उपቄኌस््ቕ्ቔ रहे्ቇा। (ii). आवेदक ्ቇवाहान को किकसी 1ी ्ቚकार से ्ቚ1ाकिव्ቔ नहीं करे्ቇा। (iii). आवेदक किव>ार्ቓ के दौरान साቌኚय से कोई छेड़-छाड़ नहीं करे्ቇा।
9. यकिद आवेदक ्ቛारा उपरो्ሹ श्ቔZ का उ्ቤंघन किकया जा्ቔा है, ्ቔो किव>ार्ቓ न्यायालय को यह छूट रहे्ቇी किक वह आवेदक की अं्ቔरिरम जमान्ቔ किनरस््ቔ कर सके्ቇा।
10. इस वाद को किदनांक 18.12.2024 को नवीनवाद के रूप में सू>ीब्ቍ किकया जाए।
11. यहां यह 1ी आदेभिश्ቔ किकया जा्ቔा है किक अकि]म किनय्ቔ चि्ቔभि्ቕ को आवेदक सौर1 िሺसह एवं पीकिड़्ቔा अपनी शादी के ऑनलाइन पंजीकृ्ቔ ्ቚमा्ቓ प्ቔ के सा्ቕ व्यकि्ሹ्ቇ्ቔ रूप से इस न्यायालय के सम्ቌ उपቄኌस््ቕ्ቔ रहें्ቇे।
12. यहाँ यह 1ी आदेभिश्ቔ किकया जा्ቔा है आवेदक, पीकिड़्ቔा के घर जाकर इस आदेश की ्ቚचि्ቔलिलकिप (सू>ना) को व्यकि्ሹ्ቇ्ቔ ्ቔौर पर उपलब्ध कराए।"
8. Subsequent to it, it was learnt that the victim has expired on 18.08.2024 but the said fact stands fortified from the death certificate, which has been filed by means of short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant.
9. Learned counsel has further stated that the interim bail granted to the applicant has been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 and the following order was passed:- “On the matter being taken up, at the outset, learned counsel for the complainant (father of the victim) submits that the victim had already died on 18.08.2024 but concealing the said fact, order of interim bail has been obtained by the applicant vide order dated 22.11.2024 on the pretext that he is willing to solemnize marriage with the victim. On putting query in this regard, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant was in jail since 06.07.2024, therefore, he was not aware about the fact relating to death of the victim on 18.08.2024. Under the circumstances, there is no question of compliance of direction given in the order dated 22.11.2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that interim bail granted to the applicant by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 is not liable to be extended. The applicant is directed to surrender before the concerned Court below within 48 hours, so that his bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. may be heard on merits, failing which, the concerned Court below shall take coercive steps against the applicant to ensure his surrender. Let this matter be listed on 04.02.2025. In the meantime, the applicant shall file an affidavit of surrender alongwith certificate of his surrender issued by the concerned Jail authority. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below within 48 hours.”
10. Learned counsel has contended that the applicant is entitled for bail as the victim has expired and there is nothing on record to suggest that the death of the victim has been caused by him or the victim has committed suicide on his abetment rather it seems to be a case of honour killing. Learned counsel has further argued that the victim was a married 11. lady and it is alleged that the applicant had even gone to her in-laws’ house and committed rape there also. Her in-laws had seen the applicant along with her and even discarded her and sent her off to her parental home.
12. Learned counsel has lastly stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. Criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
13. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has not come up with clean hands as it was very much in his knowledge that the deceased has expired on 18.08.2024 and the said order dated 22.11.2024 was taken by concealing the said fact and misleading the court. Although the applicant surrendered subsequently but he enjoyed the said interim bail, as such, he is not entitled for regular bail whatsoever at this stage.
14. Learned counsel for the informant has also argued that the life of the deceased person was ruined, as such, she had expired as she went into depression due to the said act of the applicant. She had also stopped taking any food whatsoever.
15. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the instant case seems to be that of consent as initially the FIR was instituted regarding outraging the modesty only, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
17. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant-
18. Saurabh Singh, 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
19. ground for cancellation of bail.
20. 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:- 15.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad