High Court · 2025

1.Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2.Despite the service of notice upon opposite party No.2, no one has put in appearance on her/ his behalf.

3.Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed the counter affidavit and learned counsel for the applicant has filed the affidavit, today in the Court, both the affidavits are taken on record.

4.As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Sandeep Sonkar) is languishing in jail since 18.02.2025 in F.I.R./Case Crime No.126 of 2025, under Sections 70 (2), 115 (2) & 351 (3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(g)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Gonda.

5.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.

6.Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 02.02.2025 whereas the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 17.02.2025 without explaining the delay. Even if the allegations of the F.I.R. are taken on its face value, no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant, but it has been indicated that the co-accused Vikas Mishra has forcibly compelled the present applicant to establish physical relation with his friend, who is the prosecutrix. Further, such co-accused, Vikas Mishra, has beaten the prosecutrix and the present applicant as he is a young person of 30 years whereas the present applicant and the prosecutrix are about 18 years.

7.Further attention has been drawn towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and the parents of the prosecutrix wherein they have levelled specific allegation against the co-accused, Vikas Mishra. The parents have recorded their statement on the basis of specific information being provided by the prosecutrix. However, while recording her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has changed the story for the reasons best known to her. The present applicant is a student, but learned counsel for the applicant could not receive any documentary evidence regarding education of the present applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The main accused, Vikas Mishra, is in jail. As a matter of fact, the present applicant is himself victim inasmuch as he was not willing to do such mislead with his friend/ prosecutrix and so as to save his life he was compelled to do such mislead. 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.

9.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.

10.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact in the F.I.R. the date of incident has been indicated as 02.02.2025 whereas the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 17.02.2025 without explaining such delay; no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant; the main accused, Vikas Mishra , has forcibly compelled the present applicant to establish physical relation with 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 with the trial proceedings and 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 (Sandeep Sonkar) 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 :- 22.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2.Despite the service of notice upon opposite party No.2, no one has put in appearance on her/ his behalf.

3.Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed the counter affidavit and learned counsel for the applicant has filed the affidavit, today in the Court, both the affidavits are taken on record.

4.As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Sandeep Sonkar) is languishing in jail since 18.02.2025 in F.I.R./Case Crime No.126 of 2025, under Sections 70 (2), 115 (2) & 351 (3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(g)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Gonda.

5.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.

6.Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 02.02.2025 whereas the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 17.02.2025 without explaining the delay. Even if the allegations of the F.I.R. are taken on its face value, no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant, but it has been indicated that the co-accused Vikas Mishra has forcibly compelled the present applicant to establish physical relation with his friend, who is the prosecutrix. Further, such co-accused, Vikas Mishra, has beaten the prosecutrix and the present applicant as he is a young person of 30 years whereas the present applicant and the prosecutrix are about 18 years.

7.Further attention has been drawn towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and the parents of the prosecutrix wherein they have levelled specific allegation against the co-accused, Vikas Mishra. The parents have recorded their statement on the basis of specific information being provided by the prosecutrix. However, while recording her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has changed the story for the reasons best known to her. The present applicant is a student, but learned counsel for the applicant could not receive any documentary evidence regarding education of the present applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The main accused, Vikas Mishra, is in jail. As a matter of fact, the present applicant is himself victim inasmuch as he was not willing to do such mislead with his friend/ prosecutrix and so as to save his life he was compelled to do such mislead. 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.

9.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.

10.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact in the F.I.R. the date of incident has been indicated as 02.02.2025 whereas the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 17.02.2025 without explaining such delay; no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant; the main accused, Vikas Mishra , has forcibly compelled the present applicant to establish physical relation with 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 with the trial proceedings and 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 (Sandeep Sonkar) 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 :- 22.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench