High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Asmit Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Himanshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Chaudhary,Rakesh Kumar Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2/complainant has stated that he has filed the Vakalatnama yesterday in the present case.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today, same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 17.05.2025 in Case Crime No.164 of 2025, under Sections 75, 333, 115(2), 351(3), 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S) and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar. He 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 FIR wherein the present applicant has been made sole accused, thereafter attention has been drawn towards Annexure SA-1, which is the statement of the informant/prosecutrix, who is PW-1 recorded before the learned trial court, wherein she has not supported the prosecution version, rather has stated that the present applicant has not committed any offence of any kind whatsoever against her. She recorded her statement before the police under pressure as one Dr. Sanjay Verma, Lavkush and Vivek had told and threatened her to record her statement against the present applicant having some ulterior motive in their mind. Dr. Sanjay Verma is her uncle and he compelled her to lodged an FIR. She was compelled to make signature on the FIR. During course of cross examination, she again stated the same thing which has been recorded in her chief examination, therefore, learned trial court has declared her hostile.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the present applicant in para 23 of the bail application. He has therefore submitted that keeping in a view the statement of the informant/prosecutrix the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant, however, they did not dispute the fact that informant/prosecutrix has declared hostile.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that learned trial court has declared prosecutrix/informant hostile, Annexure SA-1, which is the statement of the informant/prosecutrix, who is PW-1 recorded before the learned trial court, wherein she has not supported the prosecution version, rather has stated that the present applicant has not committed any offence of any kind whatsoever against her, she was compelled to make signature on the FIR; 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 he 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 (Asmit Patel), involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Asmit Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Himanshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Chaudhary,Rakesh Kumar Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2/complainant has stated that he has filed the Vakalatnama yesterday in the present case.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today, same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 17.05.2025 in Case Crime No.164 of 2025, under Sections 75, 333, 115(2), 351(3), 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S) and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Kotwali Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar. He 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 FIR wherein the present applicant has been made sole accused, thereafter attention has been drawn towards Annexure SA-1, which is the statement of the informant/prosecutrix, who is PW-1 recorded before the learned trial court, wherein she has not supported the prosecution version, rather has stated that the present applicant has not committed any offence of any kind whatsoever against her. She recorded her statement before the police under pressure as one Dr. Sanjay Verma, Lavkush and Vivek had told and threatened her to record her statement against the present applicant having some ulterior motive in their mind. Dr. Sanjay Verma is her uncle and he compelled her to lodged an FIR. She was compelled to make signature on the FIR. During course of cross examination, she again stated the same thing which has been recorded in her chief examination, therefore, learned trial court has declared her hostile.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the present applicant in para 23 of the bail application. He has therefore submitted that keeping in a view the statement of the informant/prosecutrix the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant, however, they did not dispute the fact that informant/prosecutrix has declared hostile.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that learned trial court has declared prosecutrix/informant hostile, Annexure SA-1, which is the statement of the informant/prosecutrix, who is PW-1 recorded before the learned trial court, wherein she has not supported the prosecution version, rather has stated that the present applicant has not committed any offence of any kind whatsoever against her, she was compelled to make signature on the FIR; 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 he 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 (Asmit Patel), involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench