High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim and the brother of the applicant were in relation with each other and earlier the victim had left her house and merely on the basis of presumption, the FIR No. 24 of 2024 under Section 363, 366, 368 IPC, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao was lodged by the complainant of the present case against the brother of the applicant in which the victim was recovered and she denied the prosecution story and stated that she had left here house on her own and thereafter the FIR in the case in question was lodged on 03.07.2024 on the written complaint of father of the victim with the allegation that on 21.05.2024 in the night, his daughter was sleeping on the roof of her house and in the night. His wife went to see her daughter and came back and reported that her daughter/victim is not found on the roof. Then, they immediately rushed to the house of the applicant and asked where is the brother of the applicant. When the parents of applicant informed them that he is sleeping on the roof of his house, then the mother of the victim went there but the brother of the applicant namely Deepu was not there. Then, they came downstairs and began to talk at the door of the house of the applicant. After one hour, Deepu came on the roof from the back of the house. When he was asked about the victim namely Pooja, he told that he does not know where she is. Thereafter, Deepu was brought to the police chowki on the next date i.e. on

22.05.2024 and the applicant and his friend namely Mahendra came to the police chowki along with the victim. It is further submitted that it is highly improbable that once the victim as well as the accused were present at the police chowki then the written complaint was not given and this has not been explained in the FIR of the case in question and the delay also is not explained when there is specific point is given in the FIR at item No. 8 which requires the reason for delay in reporting by the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the medico legal examination of the victim was also conducted after about two months. As the victim was in the custody of her parents, therefore, only with the intention to drag all the family members for giving a lesson, on the insistence of the family members of the victim, she made incorrect statements before the investigating officer concerned which were recorded under Section 180 BNSS and in the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS which was recorded more than two months after the date of incident in question.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 13.09.2024 and only one witness has been examined till today. The applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but they do not dispute the fact that earlier one FIR was lodged by the informant/ complainant of the present case against the brother of the applicant in which the final report was submitted by the police on the statement of the victim and thereafter in the present case the incident is shown to have happened in the month of May 2024 but the FIR in question was lodged in the month of July, 2024.

7. Considering the above submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of FIR as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Thus, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Rinku, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (ii) 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) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) 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 I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (v) 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 B.N.S.S. may be issued and if 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 I.P.C./209 B.N.S. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 16.6.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim and the brother of the applicant were in relation with each other and earlier the victim had left her house and merely on the basis of presumption, the FIR No. 24 of 2024 under Section 363, 366, 368 IPC, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao was lodged by the complainant of the present case against the brother of the applicant in which the victim was recovered and she denied the prosecution story and stated that she had left here house on her own and thereafter the FIR in the case in question was lodged on 03.07.2024 on the written complaint of father of the victim with the allegation that on 21.05.2024 in the night, his daughter was sleeping on the roof of her house and in the night. His wife went to see her daughter and came back and reported that her daughter/victim is not found on the roof. Then, they immediately rushed to the house of the applicant and asked where is the brother of the applicant. When the parents of applicant informed them that he is sleeping on the roof of his house, then the mother of the victim went there but the brother of the applicant namely Deepu was not there. Then, they came downstairs and began to talk at the door of the house of the applicant. After one hour, Deepu came on the roof from the back of the house. When he was asked about the victim namely Pooja, he told that he does not know where she is. Thereafter, Deepu was brought to the police chowki on the next date i.e. on

22.05.2024 and the applicant and his friend namely Mahendra came to the police chowki along with the victim. It is further submitted that it is highly improbable that once the victim as well as the accused were present at the police chowki then the written complaint was not given and this has not been explained in the FIR of the case in question and the delay also is not explained when there is specific point is given in the FIR at item No. 8 which requires the reason for delay in reporting by the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the medico legal examination of the victim was also conducted after about two months. As the victim was in the custody of her parents, therefore, only with the intention to drag all the family members for giving a lesson, on the insistence of the family members of the victim, she made incorrect statements before the investigating officer concerned which were recorded under Section 180 BNSS and in the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS which was recorded more than two months after the date of incident in question.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 13.09.2024 and only one witness has been examined till today. The applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but they do not dispute the fact that earlier one FIR was lodged by the informant/ complainant of the present case against the brother of the applicant in which the final report was submitted by the police on the statement of the victim and thereafter in the present case the incident is shown to have happened in the month of May 2024 but the FIR in question was lodged in the month of July, 2024.

7. Considering the above submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of FIR as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Thus, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Rinku, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (ii) 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) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) 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 I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (v) 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 B.N.S.S. may be issued and if 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 I.P.C./209 B.N.S. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 16.6.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench