High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Arun Sinha and Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA and Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

3. In compliance of order dated 27.02.2025, Sri Anoop Shukla, Investigating Officer is present in person. Sri Anoop Shukla has informed that investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed before the court. Sri Shukla has informed that besides the sections, which have been indicated in crime Case No.16 of 2025, charge-sheet has also been filed under Section 69 of B.N.S.

4. The present applicant is in jail since 30.01.2025 in Case Crime No. 16/2025, under Sections 64(2) B.N.S. (376 IPC), 351(3) B.N.S. (506 IPC) and 127(2) B.N.S. (342 IPC), Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence.

5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein the date of incident has been indicated as March, 2020, but no prompt FIR has been lodged. He has further submitted that the subsequent incident allegedly took place on 24.08.2024, but again no prompt FIR has been filed, as the FIR has been filed on 17.01.2025. Learned counsel has stated that the aforesaid inordinate delay has not been explained in the FIR nor in the affidavit which has been filed by the opposite parties.

6. The present applicant is a sitting member of parliament of Sitapur. Sri Sinha has drawn attention towards para 40 of the bail application whereby the criminal history of the present applicant has been explained. Out of those four criminal cases, three cases are prior to the impugned FIR and one is after the present FIR. Two cases are related to the offence allegedly committed in the political matters and two other cases are minor cases.

7. Sri Sinha has further stated that so far as the allegation relating to establish physical relation with the pretext for providing political mileage and false promise of marriage is concerned, is absolutely false and misconceived, inasmuch as the present applicant was not holding any political post from 2022 to 2024 and contested election of member of parliament in the year 2024 and succeeded his election. If, the prosecutrix could not lodge any FIR till 2022, when the present applicant was member of legislative assembly then at least any FIR could have been lodged against him, if the allegations are correct, between 2022 to 2024. Therefore, a per Sri Sinha, the impugned FIR is an after thought and has been lodged having ulterior motive and ulterior design in her mind.

8. The present applicant is a responsible person of the area and is having his permanent address besides being a member of parliament, therefore, there is no question of flight risk. Since, the chargesheet has been filed, therefore, if he is released on bail, he may not be able to influence any witness. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid fact and circumstances, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He shall abide by all terms and condition of the bail order and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Per contra, Sri V.K. Shahi, assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant is an influential person and if he is released on bail, he may likely to be turned over the star witnesses. Sri Verma has also stated that though the prosecutrix has been provided the proper protection by the order of the District and Session Judge, Sitapur but till the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded, the bail of the present applicant may not be considered.

10. Attention has also been drawn towards Section 346 B.N.S.S. which provides that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or 71 of B.N.S.S., the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of chargesheet, therefore, instead of considering the bail application of the present applicant the direction may be issued to the learned trial court to expedite the trial in terms of Section 346 B.N.S.S.

11. Reliance has been placed to various judgements of the Apex Court and this Court to submit that while considering the bail application on a serious allegation, the court must keep in mind the interest of the prosecution, informant as well as all other relevant circumstances. As per Sri Verma the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 501 in para 21 has indicated the points which should be considered at the time of granting bail. Para 21 reads as under: "21. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. State (NCT of Delhi) this Court highlighted the aspects which are to be considered by a court while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (six itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge."

12. Further attention has been drawn towards judgement and order dated 27th November, 2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and another to submit that even if there is some delay in lodging FIR, since the material / evidence has been collected and chargesheet has been filed, then the direction to record the evidence of the prosecutrix may be issued before considering the present bail application. Therefore, Sri V.K. Shahi and Sri Anurag Verma have stated that the present bail application may be rejected.

13. Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for informant has also adopted the argument of Sri V.K.Shahi and Sri Anurag Verma and has submitted that even if there is some delay in lodging the FIR, but that delay has occurred on account of some compelling circumstances which may be explained during course of trial but the delay in lodging FIR would not vitiate the FIR.

14. Therefore without entering into merits of the issue and having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, considering the fact that after completion of the investigation, chargesheet has been filed, considering the aforesaid decisions cited by the parties wherein it has been consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex court that while granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations, I find that applicant is a sitting member of parliament therefore his presence may be secured by the trial court as there is not flight risk and he has given undertaking to that effect also, the prosecutrix has been given protection by the order of the District and Session Judge, therefore, prima facie, there is no apprehension that she would be tampered with or influenced so the present applicant is enlarged on bail.

15. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant (Rakesh Rathor), 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.

17. Before parting with it is expected from the learned trial court to expedite the trial in terms of Section 346 of B.N.S.S.. Learned trial court shall record the evidence of the prosecutrix at the earliest. No unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties and if any of the witnesses do not turn up pursuant to the order of the learned trial court appropriate coercive action may be taken against them strictly in accordance with law.

18. It is also made clear that if at any time, the prosecution or prosecutrix find that the present applicant violates any condition of the bail order, any appropriate application for seeking cancellation of the bail may be filed and such application would be disposed of at the earliest. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Sri Arun Sinha and Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA and Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

3. In compliance of order dated 27.02.2025, Sri Anoop Shukla, Investigating Officer is present in person. Sri Anoop Shukla has informed that investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed before the court. Sri Shukla has informed that besides the sections, which have been indicated in crime Case No.16 of 2025, charge-sheet has also been filed under Section 69 of B.N.S.

4. The present applicant is in jail since 30.01.2025 in Case Crime No. 16/2025, under Sections 64(2) B.N.S. (376 IPC), 351(3) B.N.S. (506 IPC) and 127(2) B.N.S. (342 IPC), Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence.

5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein the date of incident has been indicated as March, 2020, but no prompt FIR has been lodged. He has further submitted that the subsequent incident allegedly took place on 24.08.2024, but again no prompt FIR has been filed, as the FIR has been filed on 17.01.2025. Learned counsel has stated that the aforesaid inordinate delay has not been explained in the FIR nor in the affidavit which has been filed by the opposite parties.

6. The present applicant is a sitting member of parliament of Sitapur. Sri Sinha has drawn attention towards para 40 of the bail application whereby the criminal history of the present applicant has been explained. Out of those four criminal cases, three cases are prior to the impugned FIR and one is after the present FIR. Two cases are related to the offence allegedly committed in the political matters and two other cases are minor cases.

7. Sri Sinha has further stated that so far as the allegation relating to establish physical relation with the pretext for providing political mileage and false promise of marriage is concerned, is absolutely false and misconceived, inasmuch as the present applicant was not holding any political post from 2022 to 2024 and contested election of member of parliament in the year 2024 and succeeded his election. If, the prosecutrix could not lodge any FIR till 2022, when the present applicant was member of legislative assembly then at least any FIR could have been lodged against him, if the allegations are correct, between 2022 to 2024. Therefore, a per Sri Sinha, the impugned FIR is an after thought and has been lodged having ulterior motive and ulterior design in her mind.

8. The present applicant is a responsible person of the area and is having his permanent address besides being a member of parliament, therefore, there is no question of flight risk. Since, the chargesheet has been filed, therefore, if he is released on bail, he may not be able to influence any witness. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid fact and circumstances, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He shall abide by all terms and condition of the bail order and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Per contra, Sri V.K. Shahi, assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant is an influential person and if he is released on bail, he may likely to be turned over the star witnesses. Sri Verma has also stated that though the prosecutrix has been provided the proper protection by the order of the District and Session Judge, Sitapur but till the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded, the bail of the present applicant may not be considered.

10. Attention has also been drawn towards Section 346 B.N.S.S. which provides that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or 71 of B.N.S.S., the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of chargesheet, therefore, instead of considering the bail application of the present applicant the direction may be issued to the learned trial court to expedite the trial in terms of Section 346 B.N.S.S.

11. Reliance has been placed to various judgements of the Apex Court and this Court to submit that while considering the bail application on a serious allegation, the court must keep in mind the interest of the prosecution, informant as well as all other relevant circumstances. As per Sri Verma the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 501 in para 21 has indicated the points which should be considered at the time of granting bail. Para 21 reads as under: "21. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. State (NCT of Delhi) this Court highlighted the aspects which are to be considered by a court while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (six itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge."

12. Further attention has been drawn towards judgement and order dated 27th November, 2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and another to submit that even if there is some delay in lodging FIR, since the material / evidence has been collected and chargesheet has been filed, then the direction to record the evidence of the prosecutrix may be issued before considering the present bail application. Therefore, Sri V.K. Shahi and Sri Anurag Verma have stated that the present bail application may be rejected.

13. Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for informant has also adopted the argument of Sri V.K.Shahi and Sri Anurag Verma and has submitted that even if there is some delay in lodging the FIR, but that delay has occurred on account of some compelling circumstances which may be explained during course of trial but the delay in lodging FIR would not vitiate the FIR.

14. Therefore without entering into merits of the issue and having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, considering the fact that after completion of the investigation, chargesheet has been filed, considering the aforesaid decisions cited by the parties wherein it has been consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex court that while granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations, I find that applicant is a sitting member of parliament therefore his presence may be secured by the trial court as there is not flight risk and he has given undertaking to that effect also, the prosecutrix has been given protection by the order of the District and Session Judge, therefore, prima facie, there is no apprehension that she would be tampered with or influenced so the present applicant is enlarged on bail.

15. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant (Rakesh Rathor), 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.

17. Before parting with it is expected from the learned trial court to expedite the trial in terms of Section 346 of B.N.S.S.. Learned trial court shall record the evidence of the prosecutrix at the earliest. No unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties and if any of the witnesses do not turn up pursuant to the order of the learned trial court appropriate coercive action may be taken against them strictly in accordance with law.

18. It is also made clear that if at any time, the prosecution or prosecutrix find that the present applicant violates any condition of the bail order, any appropriate application for seeking cancellation of the bail may be filed and such application would be disposed of at the earliest. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench