High Court · 2025

1.Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajnish Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Vikas Chauhan, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party No.2. The same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Ajay Yadav) is languishing in jail since 13.08.2024 in Case Crime No.167 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Aaspur Devsara, District- Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. At the very outset, attention has been drawn towards the details of the deponent who has filed this bail application. The deponent is the prosecutrix herself and as per her date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate is 28.10.2006. She has become major. After becoming major, she has got married with the present applicant and presently she is living with the family members of the present applicant. She has no grievance of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant or his family members.

5. The presecutrix (X)/ deponent of this bail application is present before this Court has reiterated the aforesaid submissions.

6. On being asked as to whether she is knowing the fact that the present applicant is having criminal history of three cases, she has stated that she is aware about the fact. She has stated that since her family members are not agreeable for her marriage with the present applicant, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that at the time of incident in question the prosecutrix was minor, therefore, the F.I.R. has been lodged under various sections of I.P.C. as well as under Sections of POCSO Act. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix was not in a position to understand the fact that the present applicant, who is having criminal history, would not keep her properly.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that when the offence in question was committed, the prosecutrix was minor. Therefore, the present applicant may not be granted bail.

9. Replying the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Ramakar Shukla has stated that when the prosecutrix is present in the Court and being major girl is willing to live with her husband with whom she got married after becoming major and she is not raising any grievance against the present applicant or his family members, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Sri Shukla has stated that the present applicant and his family members have undertaken that they shall look-after the prosecutrix properly and she will live with them happily. The criminal history of the present applicant has been explained. The 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 shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

10.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the prosecutrix has got married with the present applicant and presently she is living with the family members of the present applicant; she has no grievance of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant or his family members; the present applicant and his family members have undertaken that they shall look-after the prosecutrix properly and she will live with them happily; the 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 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.

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant (Ajay Yadav) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./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. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajnish Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Vikas Chauhan, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party No.2. The same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Ajay Yadav) is languishing in jail since 13.08.2024 in Case Crime No.167 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Aaspur Devsara, District- Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. At the very outset, attention has been drawn towards the details of the deponent who has filed this bail application. The deponent is the prosecutrix herself and as per her date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate is 28.10.2006. She has become major. After becoming major, she has got married with the present applicant and presently she is living with the family members of the present applicant. She has no grievance of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant or his family members.

5. The presecutrix (X)/ deponent of this bail application is present before this Court has reiterated the aforesaid submissions.

6. On being asked as to whether she is knowing the fact that the present applicant is having criminal history of three cases, she has stated that she is aware about the fact. She has stated that since her family members are not agreeable for her marriage with the present applicant, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that at the time of incident in question the prosecutrix was minor, therefore, the F.I.R. has been lodged under various sections of I.P.C. as well as under Sections of POCSO Act. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix was not in a position to understand the fact that the present applicant, who is having criminal history, would not keep her properly.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that when the offence in question was committed, the prosecutrix was minor. Therefore, the present applicant may not be granted bail.

9. Replying the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Ramakar Shukla has stated that when the prosecutrix is present in the Court and being major girl is willing to live with her husband with whom she got married after becoming major and she is not raising any grievance against the present applicant or his family members, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Sri Shukla has stated that the present applicant and his family members have undertaken that they shall look-after the prosecutrix properly and she will live with them happily. The criminal history of the present applicant has been explained. The 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 shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

10.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the prosecutrix has got married with the present applicant and presently she is living with the family members of the present applicant; she has no grievance of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant or his family members; the present applicant and his family members have undertaken that they shall look-after the prosecutrix properly and she will live with them happily; the 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 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.

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant (Ajay Yadav) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./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. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench