High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Suryansh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Srivastava,Mohd. Zaid,Vinay Kumar Verma Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard.

2. This Court has passed the order dated 5.2.2025, which reads as under:- "1. Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Mr. Vinay Kumar Verma and Mr. Mohd. Zaid has today filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant/ informant/ prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is also present in person.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is in jail since 24.11.2024 in FIR/ Case Crime No.617 of 2024 under Sections 69, 89, 352, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow.

3. Attention has been drawn towards impugned F.I.R., which was lodged on 23.11.2024 levelling allegation against the present applicant and his father for the alleged incident of December, 2023. Precisely, the allegation is that the present applicant has established physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage. On account of such physical relation, she became pregnant in the month of December, 2023 and on the insistence of the present applicant, the pregnancy aborted after taking pills given by the present applicant. The prosecutrix is again pregnant for about six weeks and the father of that child is present applicant.

4. Shri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of incident in question, the present applicant was aged about 18 years as his date of birth is 17.05.2005 as per the Marksheet of Secondary School (Annexure No.8) and the prosecutrix was aged about 25 years. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant never promised to get married with the prosecutrix as he has not attained the marriageable age. Learned counsel has not denied the relations of the applicant and the prosecutrix.

5. As per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS (164 Cr.P.C.), the prosecutrix has accepted that she is in relation with the applicant since August, 2023. She had gone with the present applicant to Dehradun, Massoorie and Kashmir in the aforesaid period i.e. w.e.f. August, 2023 till lodging of FIR, where he established physical relation with her. When the prosecutrix and the applicant were in Kashmir, the present applicant assaulted her.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the prosecutrix is still trying to meet the applicant in jail. The present applicant is a student of Intermediate and cannot marry with her before attaining the marriageable age. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Learned counsel has stated that the charge-sheet has already been filed against the present applicant and the applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail, if granted.

7. Per contra, learned counsels for the informant/ prosecutrix has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that not only the present applicant but the father of the applicant is threatening the prosecutrix for dire consequences. At one point of time, he had aimed his pistol upon the prosecutrix, threatening her that he will kill her if she compels his son to get married with her. Therefore, learned counsel has stated that if the present applicant comes out from jail, he and his father may cause any serious injury to the prosecutrix or may kill her, therefore, this aspect may be considered.

8. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the aforesaid bail application but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since the prosecutrix was in relation with the applicant since August, 2023 and first abortion took place in the month of December, 2023, thereafter the applicant had allegedly assaulted her couple of times and his father has also allegedly threatened for dire consequences but the FIR has been lodged on 23.11.2024, though the prosecutrix has attained the marriageable age but the present applicant has not attained the marriageable age and also considering the plight and grievance of the prosecutrix, I find it appropriate that let the present applicant be released on interim bail for a period of one month as his presence is also required on the next date.

10. Till the next date of listing, the present applicant (Suryansh Singh) shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on interim bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- on the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall appear before the court concerned on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; (vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

11. List this case on 27.02.2025.

12. On that date, the applicant, the parents of the applicant and the prosecutrix shall appear in person before this Court.

13. This bail application may be decided finally on the next date.

14. When the case is next listed, name of Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Mr. Vinay Kumar Verma and Mr. Mohd. Zaid shall be printed in the cause list as counsels for the complainant/ informant/ prosecutrix."

3. Today the applicant Suryansh Singh along with his parents Sri Pateshwari Singh and Smt. Sanjana Singh are present in person.

4. The prosecutrix (X) is also present along with her counsel.

5. At the very outset, Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant has informed that the present applicant is the student of Class 12th and he is to appear in the intermediate examination being conducted by NIOS Board. Such exam would start from the last week of March, 2025 and would end in the last week of April, 2025, therefore, the interim bail order may be made absolute so that he could appear in the intermediate board examination.

6. Sri Sinha has also submitted that he has talked with the parents of the applicant and as and when the prosecutrix would be needing any help, which is within their control, they can do the same, but any direction may be issued that they are not unnecessary harassed by the prosecutrix.

7. The prosecutrix has stated that she is pregnant and having pregnancy of eight months and in the aforesaid traumatic circumstances and situation, she is jobless and she is needing some permanent protection so that she could deliver a healthy child. She has reiterated that the father of her child (who is in the womb) is the present applicant and that maybe tested through DNA when such situation comes.

8. Learned AGA has informed that the charge-sheet has already been filed and trial would commence shortly, therefore, any appropriate direction maybe passed in the interest of the prosecution.

9. Notably, this Court granted interim bail to the present applicant and as per instructions from the other side, the present applicant has not violated any of the conditions, so indicated in the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2025.

10. Having considered aforesaid facts and circumstances and having considered the statement of the parties, who are present in the Court, I find it appropriate to observe that the prosecutrix, who is having pregnancy of eight months, being a sole person would not be subjected to any harassment by any of the parties and if at any time, parties from the side of the applicant find that she is needing some sort of help, they can provide the same which is within their control. At the same time, the prosecutrix shall also try her level best to live properly so that she could deliver the child at appropriate point of time, as per medical advice. In nutshell all the parties shall mind their behaviour and conduct in the given facts and circumstances. As to whether the present applicant has committed any offence would be established by the learned trial court strictly in accordance with law, wherein, the proper cooperation of the applicant is required. No unnecessary adjournment shall be taken from the side of the applicant so that the trial proceeding could be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law with expedition. The learned trial court shall expedite the proceedings.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find it appropriate that the interim bail order be made absolute on same terms and conditions which has been indicated in the aforesaid order and since, the applicant has already furnished two sureties and personal bonds, therefore, he need not submit fresh sureties and bonds.

12. It is made clear that if at any stage the prosecutrix or the prosecution find that the present applicant has violated or flouted any condition of the aforesaid order, any appropriate application may be filed seeking cancellation of bail order.

13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Om OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Suryansh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Srivastava,Mohd. Zaid,Vinay Kumar Verma Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard.

2. This Court has passed the order dated 5.2.2025, which reads as under:- "1. Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Mr. Vinay Kumar Verma and Mr. Mohd. Zaid has today filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant/ informant/ prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is also present in person.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is in jail since 24.11.2024 in FIR/ Case Crime No.617 of 2024 under Sections 69, 89, 352, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow.

3. Attention has been drawn towards impugned F.I.R., which was lodged on 23.11.2024 levelling allegation against the present applicant and his father for the alleged incident of December, 2023. Precisely, the allegation is that the present applicant has established physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage. On account of such physical relation, she became pregnant in the month of December, 2023 and on the insistence of the present applicant, the pregnancy aborted after taking pills given by the present applicant. The prosecutrix is again pregnant for about six weeks and the father of that child is present applicant.

4. Shri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of incident in question, the present applicant was aged about 18 years as his date of birth is 17.05.2005 as per the Marksheet of Secondary School (Annexure No.8) and the prosecutrix was aged about 25 years. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant never promised to get married with the prosecutrix as he has not attained the marriageable age. Learned counsel has not denied the relations of the applicant and the prosecutrix.

5. As per the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS (164 Cr.P.C.), the prosecutrix has accepted that she is in relation with the applicant since August, 2023. She had gone with the present applicant to Dehradun, Massoorie and Kashmir in the aforesaid period i.e. w.e.f. August, 2023 till lodging of FIR, where he established physical relation with her. When the prosecutrix and the applicant were in Kashmir, the present applicant assaulted her.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the prosecutrix is still trying to meet the applicant in jail. The present applicant is a student of Intermediate and cannot marry with her before attaining the marriageable age. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Learned counsel has stated that the charge-sheet has already been filed against the present applicant and the applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail, if granted.

7. Per contra, learned counsels for the informant/ prosecutrix has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that not only the present applicant but the father of the applicant is threatening the prosecutrix for dire consequences. At one point of time, he had aimed his pistol upon the prosecutrix, threatening her that he will kill her if she compels his son to get married with her. Therefore, learned counsel has stated that if the present applicant comes out from jail, he and his father may cause any serious injury to the prosecutrix or may kill her, therefore, this aspect may be considered.

8. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the aforesaid bail application but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since the prosecutrix was in relation with the applicant since August, 2023 and first abortion took place in the month of December, 2023, thereafter the applicant had allegedly assaulted her couple of times and his father has also allegedly threatened for dire consequences but the FIR has been lodged on 23.11.2024, though the prosecutrix has attained the marriageable age but the present applicant has not attained the marriageable age and also considering the plight and grievance of the prosecutrix, I find it appropriate that let the present applicant be released on interim bail for a period of one month as his presence is also required on the next date.

10. Till the next date of listing, the present applicant (Suryansh Singh) shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on interim bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- on the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall appear before the court concerned on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; (vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

11. List this case on 27.02.2025.

12. On that date, the applicant, the parents of the applicant and the prosecutrix shall appear in person before this Court.

13. This bail application may be decided finally on the next date.

14. When the case is next listed, name of Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Mr. Vinay Kumar Verma and Mr. Mohd. Zaid shall be printed in the cause list as counsels for the complainant/ informant/ prosecutrix."

3. Today the applicant Suryansh Singh along with his parents Sri Pateshwari Singh and Smt. Sanjana Singh are present in person.

4. The prosecutrix (X) is also present along with her counsel.

5. At the very outset, Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant has informed that the present applicant is the student of Class 12th and he is to appear in the intermediate examination being conducted by NIOS Board. Such exam would start from the last week of March, 2025 and would end in the last week of April, 2025, therefore, the interim bail order may be made absolute so that he could appear in the intermediate board examination.

6. Sri Sinha has also submitted that he has talked with the parents of the applicant and as and when the prosecutrix would be needing any help, which is within their control, they can do the same, but any direction may be issued that they are not unnecessary harassed by the prosecutrix.

7. The prosecutrix has stated that she is pregnant and having pregnancy of eight months and in the aforesaid traumatic circumstances and situation, she is jobless and she is needing some permanent protection so that she could deliver a healthy child. She has reiterated that the father of her child (who is in the womb) is the present applicant and that maybe tested through DNA when such situation comes.

8. Learned AGA has informed that the charge-sheet has already been filed and trial would commence shortly, therefore, any appropriate direction maybe passed in the interest of the prosecution.

9. Notably, this Court granted interim bail to the present applicant and as per instructions from the other side, the present applicant has not violated any of the conditions, so indicated in the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2025.

10. Having considered aforesaid facts and circumstances and having considered the statement of the parties, who are present in the Court, I find it appropriate to observe that the prosecutrix, who is having pregnancy of eight months, being a sole person would not be subjected to any harassment by any of the parties and if at any time, parties from the side of the applicant find that she is needing some sort of help, they can provide the same which is within their control. At the same time, the prosecutrix shall also try her level best to live properly so that she could deliver the child at appropriate point of time, as per medical advice. In nutshell all the parties shall mind their behaviour and conduct in the given facts and circumstances. As to whether the present applicant has committed any offence would be established by the learned trial court strictly in accordance with law, wherein, the proper cooperation of the applicant is required. No unnecessary adjournment shall be taken from the side of the applicant so that the trial proceeding could be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law with expedition. The learned trial court shall expedite the proceedings.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find it appropriate that the interim bail order be made absolute on same terms and conditions which has been indicated in the aforesaid order and since, the applicant has already furnished two sureties and personal bonds, therefore, he need not submit fresh sureties and bonds.

12. It is made clear that if at any stage the prosecutrix or the prosecution find that the present applicant has violated or flouted any condition of the aforesaid order, any appropriate application may be filed seeking cancellation of bail order.

13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Om OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench