High Court · 2025

1. Heard Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Nishit Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 06.11.2024, in FIR/ Case Crime No. 1356 of 2024, under Sections 376-d, 323, 392, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shahabad, District- Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the impugned complaint which was filed under Section 190 CrPC on 27.09.2017 is a counter blast of the incident which took place on 24.09.2019 where the mother of the applicant sustained injuries on account of assault committed by the husband of the prosecutrix and that FIR has been lodged on 02.08.2018 (Annexure No. 5). The injury report of the mother of the present applicant has been enclosed as Annexure No. 6. She has further stated that if the allegation of the complaint dated 27.09.2017 was correct, the prosecutrix should have lodged an FIR and if the FIR was not lodged, she should have filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC but instead of filing the FIR, an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, she filed a complaint under Section 190 CrPC whereby the applicant has been summoned.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that one more N.C.R. bearing No.197/2017 was filed against the applicant under Sections 354, 354(D), 427 IPC at Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Hardoi wherein the final report has been filed and that final report has been accepted by the learned Court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards an order dated 20.12.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13243 of 2024 (Narendra Kumar @ Rinku Vs. State of U. P.) granting bail to the co-accused namely Narendra Kumar @ Rinku and the role attributed to the present applicant is similar to the role attributed to the co-accused namely Narendra Kumar @ Rinku, therefore, on the principle of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the applicant is the son of a police personnel and his father used his position to influence, compel and force the prosecutrix to enter into a compromise in the case, therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, he shall definitely misuse the liberty of bail influencing the prosecutrix to enter into a compromise. Therefore, any direction may be issued to protect the interest of the prosecutrix.

7. Be that as it may, since the co-accused having similar allegation has been enlarged on bail, therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the undertaking of the applicant that if he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all the terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

8. However, it is made clear that if at any time, the prosecutrix finds that the applicant or his family members are exerting pressure or influence her or her family members to enter into a compromise, she may approach the competent authority, be it police authority or the Court and her grievance, if any, may be considered strictly in accordance with law.

9. It is directed that the applicant shall not try to meet the prosecutrix and if he tries to meet the prosecutrix for any purpose which is not acceptable to the prosecutrix, any appropriate application may be filed by the prosecutrix before the appropriate authority/ court.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Nishit Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 06.11.2024, in FIR/ Case Crime No. 1356 of 2024, under Sections 376-d, 323, 392, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shahabad, District- Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the impugned complaint which was filed under Section 190 CrPC on 27.09.2017 is a counter blast of the incident which took place on 24.09.2019 where the mother of the applicant sustained injuries on account of assault committed by the husband of the prosecutrix and that FIR has been lodged on 02.08.2018 (Annexure No. 5). The injury report of the mother of the present applicant has been enclosed as Annexure No. 6. She has further stated that if the allegation of the complaint dated 27.09.2017 was correct, the prosecutrix should have lodged an FIR and if the FIR was not lodged, she should have filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC but instead of filing the FIR, an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, she filed a complaint under Section 190 CrPC whereby the applicant has been summoned.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that one more N.C.R. bearing No.197/2017 was filed against the applicant under Sections 354, 354(D), 427 IPC at Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Hardoi wherein the final report has been filed and that final report has been accepted by the learned Court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards an order dated 20.12.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13243 of 2024 (Narendra Kumar @ Rinku Vs. State of U. P.) granting bail to the co-accused namely Narendra Kumar @ Rinku and the role attributed to the present applicant is similar to the role attributed to the co-accused namely Narendra Kumar @ Rinku, therefore, on the principle of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the applicant is the son of a police personnel and his father used his position to influence, compel and force the prosecutrix to enter into a compromise in the case, therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, he shall definitely misuse the liberty of bail influencing the prosecutrix to enter into a compromise. Therefore, any direction may be issued to protect the interest of the prosecutrix.

7. Be that as it may, since the co-accused having similar allegation has been enlarged on bail, therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the undertaking of the applicant that if he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all the terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

8. However, it is made clear that if at any time, the prosecutrix finds that the applicant or his family members are exerting pressure or influence her or her family members to enter into a compromise, she may approach the competent authority, be it police authority or the Court and her grievance, if any, may be considered strictly in accordance with law.

9. It is directed that the applicant shall not try to meet the prosecutrix and if he tries to meet the prosecutrix for any purpose which is not acceptable to the prosecutrix, any appropriate application may be filed by the prosecutrix before the appropriate authority/ court.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench