High Court · 2025

1.Heard Sri P.K. Singh Bisen, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Yugal Kishor Tripathi, learned counsel who has filed Vakalatama on behalf of the complainant/ informant, the same is taken on record.

2. Sri Bisen, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, enclosing therewith the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Rajneesh Kumar Verma) is languishing in jail since 26.12.2024 in Case Crime No.649 of 2024, under Sections 69, 89, 115 (2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Antu, District-Pratapgarh.

4. 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.

5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and his mother. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant as the name of his mother has been deleted from the charge-sheet. On account of the prosecution story, the present applicant was having relation with the prosecutrix for the last two years and five months ago the present applicant started living with the prosecutrix in a rented house where she used to live and the present applicant established physical relations with her, resultant thereof, she became pregnant but such pregnancy was terminated at the behest of the present applicant and his mother.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the statement of the landlord of the house where the prosecutrix used to live has been enclosed which indicates that the prosecutrix had taken permission from the landlord to permit the present applicant to live with her. It is not a case where the present applicant managed any rented property or place. As per date of birth of the present applicant, he is aged about 21 years and the prosecutrix is aged about 27 years. The present applicant has not established any physical relation with the prosecutrix. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. 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 cooperatein the trial proceedings properly.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant/ informant Sri Yugal Kishor Tripathi, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the present applicant established physical relations with the prosecutrix. He has further submitted that though there is difference in the age of the present applicant and the prosecutrix, but both are major, therefore, the parties may enter into a marriage relation.

8. The learned Additional Government Advocate has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the statement of the landlord of the house where the prosecutrix used to live that the prosecutrix had taken permission from the landlord to permit the present applicant to live with her; the fact that there is difference in the age of the present applicant and the prosecutrix; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; 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.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant (Rajneesh Kumar Verma) 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 :- 4.3.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Sri P.K. Singh Bisen, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Yugal Kishor Tripathi, learned counsel who has filed Vakalatama on behalf of the complainant/ informant, the same is taken on record.

2. Sri Bisen, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, enclosing therewith the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Rajneesh Kumar Verma) is languishing in jail since 26.12.2024 in Case Crime No.649 of 2024, under Sections 69, 89, 115 (2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Antu, District-Pratapgarh.

4. 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.

5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and his mother. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant as the name of his mother has been deleted from the charge-sheet. On account of the prosecution story, the present applicant was having relation with the prosecutrix for the last two years and five months ago the present applicant started living with the prosecutrix in a rented house where she used to live and the present applicant established physical relations with her, resultant thereof, she became pregnant but such pregnancy was terminated at the behest of the present applicant and his mother.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the statement of the landlord of the house where the prosecutrix used to live has been enclosed which indicates that the prosecutrix had taken permission from the landlord to permit the present applicant to live with her. It is not a case where the present applicant managed any rented property or place. As per date of birth of the present applicant, he is aged about 21 years and the prosecutrix is aged about 27 years. The present applicant has not established any physical relation with the prosecutrix. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. 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 cooperatein the trial proceedings properly.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant/ informant Sri Yugal Kishor Tripathi, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that on the pretext of false promise of marriage the present applicant established physical relations with the prosecutrix. He has further submitted that though there is difference in the age of the present applicant and the prosecutrix, but both are major, therefore, the parties may enter into a marriage relation.

8. The learned Additional Government Advocate has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the statement of the landlord of the house where the prosecutrix used to live that the prosecutrix had taken permission from the landlord to permit the present applicant to live with her; the fact that there is difference in the age of the present applicant and the prosecutrix; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; 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.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant (Rajneesh Kumar Verma) 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 :- 4.3.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench