High Court · 2025

1.Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Despite the service of notice upon the opposite party No.2, no one has appeared from the very beginning.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Golu @ Omji) is languishing in jail since 08.01.2025 in Case Crime No.590 of 2024, under Sections 65 & 351 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Ramgaon, District-Bahraich.

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 only allegation of teasing has been levelled against the present applicant inasmuch as no allegation of rape or physical abuse has been raised. While recording her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix who is the complainant herself, has levelled same allegation. In her statement, she has indicated her age as 19 years and the same age has been indicated in the F.I.R. While recording the statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the father of the prosecutrix has levelled the same allegation and apprised the age of his daughter as 19 years and no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant. The same allegation has been levelled by the mother of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has denied her medical examination relating to the offence in question. The Police Medico Legal/ Non-Police Medico Legal report prepared by the Chief Medical Officer, District-Bahraich wherein the age of the prosecutrix has been determined as 15-16 years. While recording her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has firstly levelled allegation of rape against the present applicant. In this statement, she has stated her age as 15-16 years.

6. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the story so developed in the statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. is false and concocted inasmuch as if any such offence was committed by the present applicant, the prosecutrix or her parents would have apprised this fact to the police while lodging the impugned F.I.R. or at the time of recording their statement. If the offence of rape was committed, the prosecutrix would have been examined medically. He has also stated that in the allegation of rape, the medical examination is necessary. Even the age so determined by the Chief Medical Officer is taken on its face value, variation of two years may be considered by this Court. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The charge-sheet has been filed in this case. 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.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has 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 aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that there is contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S.; the parents of the prosecutrix have not levelled any allegation of rape in the impugned F.I.R. as well as in their statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S.; the charge-sheet has been filed and the present applicant is having no prior criminal history 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 with 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 (Golu @ Omji) 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. . Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Despite the service of notice upon the opposite party No.2, no one has appeared from the very beginning.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Golu @ Omji) is languishing in jail since 08.01.2025 in Case Crime No.590 of 2024, under Sections 65 & 351 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Ramgaon, District-Bahraich.

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 only allegation of teasing has been levelled against the present applicant inasmuch as no allegation of rape or physical abuse has been raised. While recording her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix who is the complainant herself, has levelled same allegation. In her statement, she has indicated her age as 19 years and the same age has been indicated in the F.I.R. While recording the statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the father of the prosecutrix has levelled the same allegation and apprised the age of his daughter as 19 years and no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant. The same allegation has been levelled by the mother of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has denied her medical examination relating to the offence in question. The Police Medico Legal/ Non-Police Medico Legal report prepared by the Chief Medical Officer, District-Bahraich wherein the age of the prosecutrix has been determined as 15-16 years. While recording her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has firstly levelled allegation of rape against the present applicant. In this statement, she has stated her age as 15-16 years.

6. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the story so developed in the statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. is false and concocted inasmuch as if any such offence was committed by the present applicant, the prosecutrix or her parents would have apprised this fact to the police while lodging the impugned F.I.R. or at the time of recording their statement. If the offence of rape was committed, the prosecutrix would have been examined medically. He has also stated that in the allegation of rape, the medical examination is necessary. Even the age so determined by the Chief Medical Officer is taken on its face value, variation of two years may be considered by this Court. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The charge-sheet has been filed in this case. 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.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has 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 aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that there is contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S.; the parents of the prosecutrix have not levelled any allegation of rape in the impugned F.I.R. as well as in their statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S.; the charge-sheet has been filed and the present applicant is having no prior criminal history 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 with 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 (Golu @ Omji) 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. . Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench