Ram Suraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And

"1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Let notice be issued to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

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

4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 54 of 2025 u/s 137(2), 65(1), 142, 87, 115(2) BNS and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. 2 NABAIL No. 881 of 2025

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation relating to POCSO Act or forceful physical relation against the present applicant and at the best if the allegations are taken on its face value only this much has been alleged against the present applicant that he helped the main accused Vishnu to elope the prosecutrix as he was serving as driver of the father of the victim. However, this allegation is also wrong and misconceived inasmuch as before one and half months of the incident in question the present applicant met with an accident and resultant thereof his bone of leg had broken and he was unable to move freely so he could have not driven the motor. As a matter of fact he was complete bed rest but his wife was slightly involved with main accused Vishnu, therefore, he has also been implicated without having any material or evidence against him. The present applicant may not defend his wife at this stage inasmuch as some serious allegations of elopement has been levelled against her but he was not involved in any such elopement.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that the present applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Investigation is going on so if his liberty is protected he shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the protection being granted, therefore, his liberty may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

7. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties; other material available on record; the fact that the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation relating to POCSO Act or forceful physical relation against the present applicant and at the best if the allegations are taken on its face value only this much has been alleged against the present applicant that he helped the main accused Vishnu to elope the prosecutrix as he was serving as driver of the father of the victim, allegation is also wrong and misconceived inasmuch as before one and half months of the incident in question the present applicant met with an accident and resultant thereof his bone of leg had broken and he was unable to move 3 NABAIL No. 881 of 2025 freely so he could have not driven the motor, applicant was completely on bed rest, applicant has been implicated without having any material or evidence against him, applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Investigation is going on and the undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the investigation, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal (supra).

9. The matter requires consideratation.

10. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks, rejoinder affidavit may be filed in one week thereafter.

11. List in the week commencing 25.8.2025 within top ten cases.

12. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Ram Suraj shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- I. that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on 29.7.2025 at 11.00 A.M. sharp to cooperate in the investigation and shall provide all the information and evidence with her to the investigation officer, failing which this protection may be withdrawn. II. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; III. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; IV. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; V. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution 4 NABAIL No. 881 of 2025 witness;"

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation in the F.I.R. are baseless and applicant has been falsely implicated. The investigating officer has filed the charge sheet without collecting the cogent and tangible evidence. He submits that in compliance of the order dated 24.07.2025, applicant has filed the bail bonds and has been released on interim anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Applicant has not misused the liberty of interim protection granted by this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

7. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. August 25, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/- (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Let notice be issued to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

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

4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 54 of 2025 u/s 137(2), 65(1), 142, 87, 115(2) BNS and section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. 2 NABAIL No. 881 of 2025

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation relating to POCSO Act or forceful physical relation against the present applicant and at the best if the allegations are taken on its face value only this much has been alleged against the present applicant that he helped the main accused Vishnu to elope the prosecutrix as he was serving as driver of the father of the victim. However, this allegation is also wrong and misconceived inasmuch as before one and half months of the incident in question the present applicant met with an accident and resultant thereof his bone of leg had broken and he was unable to move freely so he could have not driven the motor. As a matter of fact he was complete bed rest but his wife was slightly involved with main accused Vishnu, therefore, he has also been implicated without having any material or evidence against him. The present applicant may not defend his wife at this stage inasmuch as some serious allegations of elopement has been levelled against her but he was not involved in any such elopement.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that the present applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Investigation is going on so if his liberty is protected he shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the protection being granted, therefore, his liberty may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

7. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties; other material available on record; the fact that the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation relating to POCSO Act or forceful physical relation against the present applicant and at the best if the allegations are taken on its face value only this much has been alleged against the present applicant that he helped the main accused Vishnu to elope the prosecutrix as he was serving as driver of the father of the victim, allegation is also wrong and misconceived inasmuch as before one and half months of the incident in question the present applicant met with an accident and resultant thereof his bone of leg had broken and he was unable to move 3 NABAIL No. 881 of 2025 freely so he could have not driven the motor, applicant was completely on bed rest, applicant has been implicated without having any material or evidence against him, applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Investigation is going on and the undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the investigation, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal (supra).

9. The matter requires consideratation.

10. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks, rejoinder affidavit may be filed in one week thereafter.

11. List in the week commencing 25.8.2025 within top ten cases.

12. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Ram Suraj shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- I. that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on 29.7.2025 at 11.00 A.M. sharp to cooperate in the investigation and shall provide all the information and evidence with her to the investigation officer, failing which this protection may be withdrawn. II. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; III. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; IV. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; V. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution 4 NABAIL No. 881 of 2025 witness;"

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation in the F.I.R. are baseless and applicant has been falsely implicated. The investigating officer has filed the charge sheet without collecting the cogent and tangible evidence. He submits that in compliance of the order dated 24.07.2025, applicant has filed the bail bonds and has been released on interim anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Applicant has not misused the liberty of interim protection granted by this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

7. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. August 25, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/- (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench