High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ranvijay Singh learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Despite the service of notice upon the informant through Police Station- Hazratganj, Lucknow, no one has appeared.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2025 in Case Crime No.0317 of 2024, under Sections 64, 123, 115(2) 352, 351(2), 324(2) & 329(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S), Police Station- Hazratganj, District- Lucknow. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards impugned FIR wherein no date of incident has been indicated. The perusal of the FIR reviews that the informant/prosecutrix is known to the applicant for last four years. While recording her statement under Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S., the date of incident has not been recorded. The prosecution has alleged that she is contesting her case against her husband in a family court and the present applicant assured her to provide help introducing himself as journalist and took her in a hotel where he provided one cold drink and after consuming such drink she became unconscious and the applicant established physical relation with her and click video, though no such video has been found during investigation, therefore no chargesheet has been found under Section 67 of I.T. Act. The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital on 11.11.2024 for medical examination but she refused to get herself medically examined, as the statement of doctor has been enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure No.CA-3.

5. Learned counsel has stated that if the prosecutrix has refused to get herself medically examined, it creates doubt on the prosecution story inasmuch as for the allegation of rape the medial examination is necessary. Learned counsel has further stated that there is some monetary dispute between the applicant and prosecution and the applicant is to give Rs.5000/- to the prosecutrix, which was given by her to the applicant to provide one house under Prime Minister Housing Scheme. Since the present applicant could not provide the house under such scheme and could not repay the sum of Rs.5000/-, the impugned FIR has been lodged against him. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge-sheet has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that the allegation against the present applicant is serious as he has cheated the prosecutrix, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail,

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the informant/prosecutrix is known to the applicant for last four years, she was taken to the hospital on 11.11.2024 for medical examination but she refused to get herself medically examined, as the statement of doctor has been enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure No.CA-3; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant (Manish Dwivedi @ Shubham Dwivedi), involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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.may be issued and if 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 the country without permission of the Court concerned. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ranvijay Singh learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Despite the service of notice upon the informant through Police Station- Hazratganj, Lucknow, no one has appeared.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2025 in Case Crime No.0317 of 2024, under Sections 64, 123, 115(2) 352, 351(2), 324(2) & 329(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S), Police Station- Hazratganj, District- Lucknow. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards impugned FIR wherein no date of incident has been indicated. The perusal of the FIR reviews that the informant/prosecutrix is known to the applicant for last four years. While recording her statement under Sections 180 & 183 B.N.S.S., the date of incident has not been recorded. The prosecution has alleged that she is contesting her case against her husband in a family court and the present applicant assured her to provide help introducing himself as journalist and took her in a hotel where he provided one cold drink and after consuming such drink she became unconscious and the applicant established physical relation with her and click video, though no such video has been found during investigation, therefore no chargesheet has been found under Section 67 of I.T. Act. The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital on 11.11.2024 for medical examination but she refused to get herself medically examined, as the statement of doctor has been enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure No.CA-3.

5. Learned counsel has stated that if the prosecutrix has refused to get herself medically examined, it creates doubt on the prosecution story inasmuch as for the allegation of rape the medial examination is necessary. Learned counsel has further stated that there is some monetary dispute between the applicant and prosecution and the applicant is to give Rs.5000/- to the prosecutrix, which was given by her to the applicant to provide one house under Prime Minister Housing Scheme. Since the present applicant could not provide the house under such scheme and could not repay the sum of Rs.5000/-, the impugned FIR has been lodged against him. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge-sheet has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that the allegation against the present applicant is serious as he has cheated the prosecutrix, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail,

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the informant/prosecutrix is known to the applicant for last four years, she was taken to the hospital on 11.11.2024 for medical examination but she refused to get herself medically examined, as the statement of doctor has been enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure No.CA-3; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant (Manish Dwivedi @ Shubham Dwivedi), involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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.may be issued and if 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 the country without permission of the Court concerned. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench