High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Lal Singh @ Lalu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aakash Yadav,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Indrajeet,Savita Nandan,Shravan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. From perusal of the ordersheet, it is evident that notice had been issued to opposite party no. 2 and the same had also been served upon opposite party no. 2 personally, but no one is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is proceeding in the matter. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 122 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bighapur, District Unnao. The allegation in the FIR is that on 27.06.2024 at about 06:30 pm, the daughter of the informant went for natural call by her bicycle and thereafter she did not return, while leaving her bicycle in the shop of the friend of informant. The informant searched out but he failed to locate her. It is further alleged that the age of his daughter was about 16 years having four feet height and fair in complexion. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that the incident is said to be taken place on 27.06.2024, whereas the FIR was lodged on 30.06.2024 and no plausible explanation has been given for delay of three days. He next added that the alleged victim was recovered on 03.09.2024. He next added that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. demolishes the story of prosecution, rather it says that the victim was tortured by her parents and, therefore, she had gone outside of the place. He also added that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the victim has also made aforesaid complaint against her father and mother. He further submits that no such incident has ever been taken place and rest part of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was given by the victim under the pressure of her mother and father. He also added that the age of the applicant was about 18 years at the time of incident and added that if the applicant would not be granted bail, he may come in the contact of criminals inside the jail and there would be lessor possibility of his reform. Further submission is that there is no independent public eye witness of the incident and added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 08.09.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is strong evidence against the applicant. He added that the applicant has committed offence, as such chargesheet has been filed against him and, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the FIR was lodged belatedly by three days but no plausible explanation was given; further the victim is said to be recovered after three months on 03.09.2024; she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she fled away with the applicant because of torture given by her parents; this Court has also noticed the fact that the applicant is 18 years of age and there is a chance of his reform if he is released on bail; further it seems that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 08.09.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Lal Singh @ Lalu involved in the aforementioned 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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; (3) 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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Lal Singh @ Lalu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aakash Yadav,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Indrajeet,Savita Nandan,Shravan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. From perusal of the ordersheet, it is evident that notice had been issued to opposite party no. 2 and the same had also been served upon opposite party no. 2 personally, but no one is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is proceeding in the matter. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 122 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bighapur, District Unnao. The allegation in the FIR is that on 27.06.2024 at about 06:30 pm, the daughter of the informant went for natural call by her bicycle and thereafter she did not return, while leaving her bicycle in the shop of the friend of informant. The informant searched out but he failed to locate her. It is further alleged that the age of his daughter was about 16 years having four feet height and fair in complexion. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that the incident is said to be taken place on 27.06.2024, whereas the FIR was lodged on 30.06.2024 and no plausible explanation has been given for delay of three days. He next added that the alleged victim was recovered on 03.09.2024. He next added that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. demolishes the story of prosecution, rather it says that the victim was tortured by her parents and, therefore, she had gone outside of the place. He also added that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the victim has also made aforesaid complaint against her father and mother. He further submits that no such incident has ever been taken place and rest part of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was given by the victim under the pressure of her mother and father. He also added that the age of the applicant was about 18 years at the time of incident and added that if the applicant would not be granted bail, he may come in the contact of criminals inside the jail and there would be lessor possibility of his reform. Further submission is that there is no independent public eye witness of the incident and added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 08.09.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is strong evidence against the applicant. He added that the applicant has committed offence, as such chargesheet has been filed against him and, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the FIR was lodged belatedly by three days but no plausible explanation was given; further the victim is said to be recovered after three months on 03.09.2024; she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she fled away with the applicant because of torture given by her parents; this Court has also noticed the fact that the applicant is 18 years of age and there is a chance of his reform if he is released on bail; further it seems that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 08.09.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Lal Singh @ Lalu involved in the aforementioned 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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; (3) 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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench