Thru. S.H.O. P.S. Sriduttganj Balrampur v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

"1. Heard Sri Bhoopal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

3. Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

4. List on 04.08.2025.

5. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed.

6. Accused/ opposite party no.2 shall appear in person on the next date.

7. The Station House Officer, Police Station- Sriduttganj, District- Balrampur, U.P. shall ensure the presence of opposite party no.2 on the next date.

8. Learned AGA shall intimate this order to the S.H.O. concerned at the earliest through e-mail/WhatsApp or any other convenient mode for its compliance." 2 BAILC No. 65 of 2025

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order the complainant / prosecutrix as well as opposite party no. 2 Mairaj s/o Samiullah are present in person.

4. Despite the specific direction being issued by this Court vide para 7 to the effect that Station House Officer, P.S. Sriduttganj, District Balrampur shall ensure the presence of opposite party no. 2 on the next date and this order having been intimated to S.H.O. of the police station concerned, neither the S.H.O. to whom the order was communicated nor any police officer of such police station is present in the Court, therefore, this would be taken as disobedience of the order being issued by this Court by the S.H.O. concerned. Therefore, the S.H.O. Sriduttganj, District Balrampur shall appear in person on the next date along with explanation as to why he / she or the police personnel of the police station concerned are not present along with the opposite party no. 2.

5. This is a bail cancellation application seeking cancellation of the bail order dated

17.1.2025 passed by this Court in Case Crime No. 135 of 2024 u/s 376, 315, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Shriduttganj, District Balrampur which reads as under : "1. Heard Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajnish Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Ms. Ichha Singh, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mairaj) is languishing in jail since 06.11.2024 in Case Crime No.135 of 2024, under Sections 376, 315, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Shri Dutt Ganj, District-Balrampur.

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. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 26.02.2020 but the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 06.11.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay of four years and eight months. As per the F.I.R., the allegation has been levelled against the entire family members of the present applicant. The present applicant is willing to get married with the prosecutrix and he had assured the prosecutrix and her family members that after earning some reasonable amount for livelihood, he will get married with the prosecutrix but the family members of the prosecutrix were not agreeable on that, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged. The present applicant still undertakes that after earning some reasonable amount for livelihood, he will get married with the prosecutrix within a period of four months.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the charge-sheet has been filed in 3 BAILC No. 65 of 2025 this case. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. 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.

6. 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.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the present applicant has assured that after earning some reasonable amount for livelihood, he will get married with the prosecutrix within a period of four months; the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged after four years and eight months from the date of incident and there is no explanation of the aforesaid inordinate delay; the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and there is no criminal history against the present applicant 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.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant (Mairaj) 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. 4 BAILC No. 65 of 2025 (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."

6. On being asked from Sri Mairaj, the opposite party no. 2 as to why he has not married with the prosecutrix, he has submitted that due to some compelling circumstances in his family and financial constraints he could not marry with her within time so indicated in the bail order dated 17.1.2025 but he has again assured the Court that he will marry with the prosecutrix within a period of 15 days doing 'Nikah' with her and will show 'Nikahnama' on the next date. He has also assured that he will get his marriage registered within 15 days by applying appropriate application before the competent authority of marriage registration.

7. The prosecutrix has, however, shown her dissatisfaction on the assurance of Mairaj by saying that after release from jail pursuant to the bail order dated 17.1.2025 he agreed to get married with her for that all necessary arrangements were done by her family but on the particular date when such marriage / Nikah was to take place he left the place and did not try to contact her though he lived with her as husband for last four years. She has stated that if Mairaj is willing to get one more opportunity, same may be given but that opportunity should be the last opportunity.

8. Having considered the request of Mairaj, the opposite party no. 2 and submission of prosecutrix, as a last opportunity, 15 days time is given to Mairaj to marry with her by proper Nikah and Nikahnama would be shown to the Court on the next date. After proper Nikah with the prosecutrix he shall immediately apply for registration of marriage before the Marriage Registering Authority and such marriage shall be registered strictly in accordance with law if all required formalities are completed by the parties.

9. The Marriage Registering Certificate shall also be shown to the Court along with Nikahnama.

10. List this case on 8.9.2025.

11. This matter may be taken up at 4.00 P.M. On that date the prosecutrix and opposite party no. 2 shall again appear in person along with aforesaid document.

12. The S.H.O. concerned shall also appear on the next date in terms of the aforesaid direction."

3. Today, the prosecutrix and opposite party no.2-Mairaj are present in 5 BAILC No. 65 of 2025 person. S.O., Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur, U.P. is also present in terms of the aforesaid order alongwith Constable Sri Akhilesh Yadav.

4. On being asked from accused-Mairaj as to whether he has got married with the prosecutrix in terms of his own undertaking given while getting bail and on 04.08.2025 when this application was heard, he has stated that he has not married with the prosecutrix, therefore, he is ready to face the consequences. On being further asked from accused-Mairaj about the reason as to why he could not marry with the prosecutrix, he has stated that those reasons cannot be explained before the Court but his marriage with the prosecutrix is not possible in any manner whatsoever.

5. Keeping in view the fact that accused-Mairaj was granted bail by this Court on his assurance that he is willing to marry with the prosecutrix and when this application was heard on 04.08.2025, accused-Mairaj has again assured the Court that he will marry with the prosecutrix, so, the bail granted to accused-Mairaj vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.357 of 2025 relating to FIR/Case Crime No. 135 of 2024, under Sections 376, 315, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur is hereby cancelled.

6. Since accused-Mairaj or his advocate could not explain the reason as to why despite specific undertaking given before this Court, he has flouted such undertaking, therefore, the aforesaid approach of accused-Mairaj may not be accepted. Learned counsel could have addressed the bail of accused-Mairaj on any other ground but the specific undertaking on which the bail was granted has been flouted, therefore, opposite party no.2 / accused-Mairaj is taken into custody.

7. S.O., Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur, U.P. and Constable Sri Akhilesh Yadav, Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur are directed to take opposite party no.2/accused- Mairaj within their custody and hand over his custody to the competent authority of the District Jail, Balrampur in FIR/Case Crime No.135 of 2024, under Sections 376, 315, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur. 6 BAILC No. 65 of 2025

8. Since this order has been passed at 04:12 P.M. and it will take at least four hours' time to go back to Balrampur, therefore, accused-Mairaj will be kept in the police custody at the police station providing him necessary facilities e.g. fooding etc. and his custody shall be handed over to the Jail Authorities by 11:00 A.M. on 09.09.2025.

9. In view of the above, this application is allowed.

10. However, it is always open for accused-Mairaj to prefer a fresh bail application before this Court. September 8, 2025 RBS/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"1. Heard Sri Bhoopal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

3. Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

4. List on 04.08.2025.

5. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed.

6. Accused/ opposite party no.2 shall appear in person on the next date.

7. The Station House Officer, Police Station- Sriduttganj, District- Balrampur, U.P. shall ensure the presence of opposite party no.2 on the next date.

8. Learned AGA shall intimate this order to the S.H.O. concerned at the earliest through e-mail/WhatsApp or any other convenient mode for its compliance." 2 BAILC No. 65 of 2025

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order the complainant / prosecutrix as well as opposite party no. 2 Mairaj s/o Samiullah are present in person.

4. Despite the specific direction being issued by this Court vide para 7 to the effect that Station House Officer, P.S. Sriduttganj, District Balrampur shall ensure the presence of opposite party no. 2 on the next date and this order having been intimated to S.H.O. of the police station concerned, neither the S.H.O. to whom the order was communicated nor any police officer of such police station is present in the Court, therefore, this would be taken as disobedience of the order being issued by this Court by the S.H.O. concerned. Therefore, the S.H.O. Sriduttganj, District Balrampur shall appear in person on the next date along with explanation as to why he / she or the police personnel of the police station concerned are not present along with the opposite party no. 2.

5. This is a bail cancellation application seeking cancellation of the bail order dated

17.1.2025 passed by this Court in Case Crime No. 135 of 2024 u/s 376, 315, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Shriduttganj, District Balrampur which reads as under : "1. Heard Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajnish Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Ms. Ichha Singh, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mairaj) is languishing in jail since 06.11.2024 in Case Crime No.135 of 2024, under Sections 376, 315, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Shri Dutt Ganj, District-Balrampur.

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. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 26.02.2020 but the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 06.11.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay of four years and eight months. As per the F.I.R., the allegation has been levelled against the entire family members of the present applicant. The present applicant is willing to get married with the prosecutrix and he had assured the prosecutrix and her family members that after earning some reasonable amount for livelihood, he will get married with the prosecutrix but the family members of the prosecutrix were not agreeable on that, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged. The present applicant still undertakes that after earning some reasonable amount for livelihood, he will get married with the prosecutrix within a period of four months.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the charge-sheet has been filed in 3 BAILC No. 65 of 2025 this case. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. 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.

6. 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.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the present applicant has assured that after earning some reasonable amount for livelihood, he will get married with the prosecutrix within a period of four months; the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged after four years and eight months from the date of incident and there is no explanation of the aforesaid inordinate delay; the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and there is no criminal history against the present applicant 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.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant (Mairaj) 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. 4 BAILC No. 65 of 2025 (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."

6. On being asked from Sri Mairaj, the opposite party no. 2 as to why he has not married with the prosecutrix, he has submitted that due to some compelling circumstances in his family and financial constraints he could not marry with her within time so indicated in the bail order dated 17.1.2025 but he has again assured the Court that he will marry with the prosecutrix within a period of 15 days doing 'Nikah' with her and will show 'Nikahnama' on the next date. He has also assured that he will get his marriage registered within 15 days by applying appropriate application before the competent authority of marriage registration.

7. The prosecutrix has, however, shown her dissatisfaction on the assurance of Mairaj by saying that after release from jail pursuant to the bail order dated 17.1.2025 he agreed to get married with her for that all necessary arrangements were done by her family but on the particular date when such marriage / Nikah was to take place he left the place and did not try to contact her though he lived with her as husband for last four years. She has stated that if Mairaj is willing to get one more opportunity, same may be given but that opportunity should be the last opportunity.

8. Having considered the request of Mairaj, the opposite party no. 2 and submission of prosecutrix, as a last opportunity, 15 days time is given to Mairaj to marry with her by proper Nikah and Nikahnama would be shown to the Court on the next date. After proper Nikah with the prosecutrix he shall immediately apply for registration of marriage before the Marriage Registering Authority and such marriage shall be registered strictly in accordance with law if all required formalities are completed by the parties.

9. The Marriage Registering Certificate shall also be shown to the Court along with Nikahnama.

10. List this case on 8.9.2025.

11. This matter may be taken up at 4.00 P.M. On that date the prosecutrix and opposite party no. 2 shall again appear in person along with aforesaid document.

12. The S.H.O. concerned shall also appear on the next date in terms of the aforesaid direction."

3. Today, the prosecutrix and opposite party no.2-Mairaj are present in 5 BAILC No. 65 of 2025 person. S.O., Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur, U.P. is also present in terms of the aforesaid order alongwith Constable Sri Akhilesh Yadav.

4. On being asked from accused-Mairaj as to whether he has got married with the prosecutrix in terms of his own undertaking given while getting bail and on 04.08.2025 when this application was heard, he has stated that he has not married with the prosecutrix, therefore, he is ready to face the consequences. On being further asked from accused-Mairaj about the reason as to why he could not marry with the prosecutrix, he has stated that those reasons cannot be explained before the Court but his marriage with the prosecutrix is not possible in any manner whatsoever.

5. Keeping in view the fact that accused-Mairaj was granted bail by this Court on his assurance that he is willing to marry with the prosecutrix and when this application was heard on 04.08.2025, accused-Mairaj has again assured the Court that he will marry with the prosecutrix, so, the bail granted to accused-Mairaj vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.357 of 2025 relating to FIR/Case Crime No. 135 of 2024, under Sections 376, 315, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur is hereby cancelled.

6. Since accused-Mairaj or his advocate could not explain the reason as to why despite specific undertaking given before this Court, he has flouted such undertaking, therefore, the aforesaid approach of accused-Mairaj may not be accepted. Learned counsel could have addressed the bail of accused-Mairaj on any other ground but the specific undertaking on which the bail was granted has been flouted, therefore, opposite party no.2 / accused-Mairaj is taken into custody.

7. S.O., Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur, U.P. and Constable Sri Akhilesh Yadav, Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur are directed to take opposite party no.2/accused- Mairaj within their custody and hand over his custody to the competent authority of the District Jail, Balrampur in FIR/Case Crime No.135 of 2024, under Sections 376, 315, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Shriduttganj, District- Balrampur. 6 BAILC No. 65 of 2025

8. Since this order has been passed at 04:12 P.M. and it will take at least four hours' time to go back to Balrampur, therefore, accused-Mairaj will be kept in the police custody at the police station providing him necessary facilities e.g. fooding etc. and his custody shall be handed over to the Jail Authorities by 11:00 A.M. on 09.09.2025.

9. In view of the above, this application is allowed.

10. However, it is always open for accused-Mairaj to prefer a fresh bail application before this Court. September 8, 2025 RBS/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench