High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri P.K. Singh Bisen, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari Shanker Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Shesh Mani Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant/victim.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Abdul Rauf) is languishing in jail since 25.10.2024 in Case Crime No.147 of 2024, under Sections 376(1), 506 of IPC, Police Station- Mandhata, District- Pratapgarh. 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 which was lodged on 27.09.2024 for the alleged incident dated 30.06.2024 pursuant to the application being filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 27.09.2024 without explaining the inordinate delay.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that if the prosecution version is taken on its face value, for the alleged incident dated 30.06.2024, the informant preferred an application through the registered post to the Superintendent of Police concerned on 19.07.2024 i.e. after 19 days without explaining the delay. Further, after submitting the aforesaid application to the Superintendent of Police concerned no prompt FIR has been lodged, rather, such application has been filed on 25.09.2024 and pursuant to that application, the FIR has been lodged on 27.09.2024.

6. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-6, which is an FIR dated 19.03.2024 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.26 of 2024, under Sections 147, 354, 452, 323, 427, 506 of IPC, Police Station Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, lodged by the daughter of the present applicant against the son and husband of the prosecutrix as well as other three persons. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed as a counter blast to the aforesaid FIR. The prosecutrix is a middle aged lady of 55 years and she denied for medication examination. In a cases where the allegation of rape has been levelled, medical examination is necessary. Learned counsel has explained the criminal history of the two cases in the supplementary affidavit. Charge-sheet has been filed. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and they shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that when the FIR of the prosecutrix was not lodged, she preferred a application to the Superintendent of Police concerned, thereafter, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. He has further stated that the allegation of the FIR are consistent in her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, this bail application may be rejected.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and without entering into the merit and considering the fact that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed as a counter blast to the earlier FIR bearing FIR/Case Crime No.26 of 2024, under Sections 147, 354, 452, 323, 427, 506 of IPC; the prosecutrix is a middle aged lady of 55 years and she denied for medication examination. Charge sheet has been filed 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 (Abdul Rauf) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and 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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri P.K. Singh Bisen, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari Shanker Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Shesh Mani Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant/victim.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Abdul Rauf) is languishing in jail since 25.10.2024 in Case Crime No.147 of 2024, under Sections 376(1), 506 of IPC, Police Station- Mandhata, District- Pratapgarh. 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 which was lodged on 27.09.2024 for the alleged incident dated 30.06.2024 pursuant to the application being filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 27.09.2024 without explaining the inordinate delay.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that if the prosecution version is taken on its face value, for the alleged incident dated 30.06.2024, the informant preferred an application through the registered post to the Superintendent of Police concerned on 19.07.2024 i.e. after 19 days without explaining the delay. Further, after submitting the aforesaid application to the Superintendent of Police concerned no prompt FIR has been lodged, rather, such application has been filed on 25.09.2024 and pursuant to that application, the FIR has been lodged on 27.09.2024.

6. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-6, which is an FIR dated 19.03.2024 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.26 of 2024, under Sections 147, 354, 452, 323, 427, 506 of IPC, Police Station Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, lodged by the daughter of the present applicant against the son and husband of the prosecutrix as well as other three persons. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed as a counter blast to the aforesaid FIR. The prosecutrix is a middle aged lady of 55 years and she denied for medication examination. In a cases where the allegation of rape has been levelled, medical examination is necessary. Learned counsel has explained the criminal history of the two cases in the supplementary affidavit. Charge-sheet has been filed. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and they shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that when the FIR of the prosecutrix was not lodged, she preferred a application to the Superintendent of Police concerned, thereafter, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. He has further stated that the allegation of the FIR are consistent in her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, this bail application may be rejected.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and without entering into the merit and considering the fact that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed as a counter blast to the earlier FIR bearing FIR/Case Crime No.26 of 2024, under Sections 147, 354, 452, 323, 427, 506 of IPC; the prosecutrix is a middle aged lady of 55 years and she denied for medication examination. Charge sheet has been filed 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 (Abdul Rauf) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and 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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench