High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41349 of 2024 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40913 Applicant :- Pradeep Rajput Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Maohammd Nadeem Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Mohd. Nadeem, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Pradeep Rajput, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.123 of 2024, u/s 376, 506 IPC and Section 5(J)(ii) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj. 4. This matter has been nominated to this Bench vide order dated 18.3.2025 of Hon'ble The Chief Justice. 5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 16.4.2024 by Smt. Dhandevi against the applicant and Akanksha alleging therein that she had gone to hospital around 6-7 months back for the treatment of her husband and stayed there for about 3-4 months. On 13.4.2024 when she returned back with her husband, she found her daughter aged about 15 years looking like having pregnancy on which she was consoled and asked wherein she told her that around 7 months back Akanksha came to house and took her to show the fields where Pradeep, the applicant was present since before where Akanksha told her to establish physical relationship with him after which Pradeep forcibly threw her on the ground and raped on her. Both the accused threatened her. She became pregnant due to rape committed upon her by Pradeep. She is 15 years old and studied up to class 8th. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the trial in the present matter has started in which the victim/prosecutrix has been examined as P.W.1 who did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Dhandevi, the first informant has also been examined as P.W.2 before the trial court who also did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that as such the prosecution case is totally false and the implication of the applicant in the present matter is false and without any cogent evidence. It is further submitted that the doctor as per supplementary medico legal report has opined the age of the victim to be about 18 years and as such she is a major. Co-accused Akanksha has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27798 of 2024, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.10 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 32 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 17.4.2024. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant although is present but he does not oppose the bail and submits that the victim and the first informant who were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively before the trial court, have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that as per supplementary medico legal report, the victim is aged about 18 years. The victim and the first informant while being examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively before the trial court have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Co-accused has been granted bail. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant-Pradeep Rajput, 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. (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 82 Cr.P.C., 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 174-A I.P.C. (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 313 Cr.P.C. 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 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 11. 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. 12. However, it is directed that launching of prosecution against the first informant/injured be proceeded in view of para 11 of the judgment in the case of "Aman Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others" : Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41458 of 2023 dated 02.02.2024 which reads as under: "11. अतत नययययलय यह आददशशत करतत हह शक यशद पतशडतय कद पक दयरय जज धन सरकयर सद ललयय गयय हह, वह उसकज बययज कद सयथ वयपस करद और ससबसलधत अधतनसथ नययययलय अगर यह पयतत हह शक शवपकत पक दयरय गलत ममकदमय शकयय गयय थय, तज उनकद शवरद भत अशभयजजन कक कययरवयहत कक जयए। इस आददश कक एक पशत ससबसलधत अधतनसथ नययययलय एवस लजलयलधकयरत कज पदशषत कक जयए शक यशद वतरमयन पयथशमकक गलत पययत जयतत हह तज, पतशडतय कज शमलद धन कक रयजसव कद रप मम वससलत करकद सरकयरत खयतद मम जमय करद और ससबसलधत अधतनसथ नययययलय पतशडतय एवस उसकद पक कद शवरद अशभयजजन चलययद।" 13. The bail application is allowed. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad