High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vimlesh Kumar Kashyap, advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No. 4/ complainant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 13.09.2024 in FIR/ Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, under Sections 69, 352, 351(2), 74, 115(2) BNS, Section 9- M/10 POCSO Act And Section 3/4 of U. P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station- Aashiyana, District- Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the allegation has been levelled against four accused persons including the present applicant. The exact date of incident has not been indicated in the FIR, rather the victim has indicated that the applicant has established physical relation with her a couple of times in the last four years on the pretext of false promise of marriage. Further allegation has been levelled that the applicant used to touch her daughter, who is aged about 10 years inappropriately. She has also alleged that the applicant has concealed his relation from the victim, introducing himself in the name of Saurabh Soni but later on when victim came to know his religion, she protested and then the applicant began to compel her to convert to his religion. The aforesaid statements are consistent while recording her statement under Section 180 & 183 BNSS. In the aforesaid statements, the victim has not explained as to why she did not lodged prompt FIR against the applicant.

4. Attention has also been drawn towards Annexure No. 7, which is the statement of the daughter of the victim/ prosecutrix, who is aged about 10 years, recorded under Section 180 BNSS wherein she has alleged that the applicant used come to her house and when her mother was out of the house, he used to to touch her inappropriately. The same statement has been given by the daughter of the victim/ prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the minor daughter of the victim/ prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation against the applicant which comes within the purview of offence under Section POCSO Act. Charge sheet has been filed. He has stated that the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

5. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the applicant has committed serious offence and established physical relation with the victim/ prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage and was having bad intention towards the minor daughter of the victim/ prosecutrix also, therefore, his bail application may be rejected.

7. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the allegation has been levelled against four accused persons including the present applicant; the exact date of incident has not been indicated in the FIR, rather the victim has indicated that the applicant has established physical relation with her for a couple of times in the last four years on the pretext of false promise of marriage; charge sheet has been filed; the applicant has no prior criminal history and any kind whatsoever and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I am of the opinion that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Zainul Abedeen 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. (v) The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Order Date :- 30.1.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vimlesh Kumar Kashyap, advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No. 4/ complainant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 13.09.2024 in FIR/ Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, under Sections 69, 352, 351(2), 74, 115(2) BNS, Section 9- M/10 POCSO Act And Section 3/4 of U. P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station- Aashiyana, District- Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the allegation has been levelled against four accused persons including the present applicant. The exact date of incident has not been indicated in the FIR, rather the victim has indicated that the applicant has established physical relation with her a couple of times in the last four years on the pretext of false promise of marriage. Further allegation has been levelled that the applicant used to touch her daughter, who is aged about 10 years inappropriately. She has also alleged that the applicant has concealed his relation from the victim, introducing himself in the name of Saurabh Soni but later on when victim came to know his religion, she protested and then the applicant began to compel her to convert to his religion. The aforesaid statements are consistent while recording her statement under Section 180 & 183 BNSS. In the aforesaid statements, the victim has not explained as to why she did not lodged prompt FIR against the applicant.

4. Attention has also been drawn towards Annexure No. 7, which is the statement of the daughter of the victim/ prosecutrix, who is aged about 10 years, recorded under Section 180 BNSS wherein she has alleged that the applicant used come to her house and when her mother was out of the house, he used to to touch her inappropriately. The same statement has been given by the daughter of the victim/ prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the minor daughter of the victim/ prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation against the applicant which comes within the purview of offence under Section POCSO Act. Charge sheet has been filed. He has stated that the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

5. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the applicant has committed serious offence and established physical relation with the victim/ prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage and was having bad intention towards the minor daughter of the victim/ prosecutrix also, therefore, his bail application may be rejected.

7. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the allegation has been levelled against four accused persons including the present applicant; the exact date of incident has not been indicated in the FIR, rather the victim has indicated that the applicant has established physical relation with her for a couple of times in the last four years on the pretext of false promise of marriage; charge sheet has been filed; the applicant has no prior criminal history and any kind whatsoever and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I am of the opinion that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Zainul Abedeen 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. (v) The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Order Date :- 30.1.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench