Court granted bail to an applicant charged with attempted rape under POCSO and IPC sections. The court noted delays and inconsistencies in the FIR but relied on the applicant's averments of false antecedents and engaged with Apex Court bail principles.
Released on bail with personal bond and two local sureties on specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33404 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep @ Lalla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Sengar,Ajay Singh Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Pradeep @ Lalla with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 392 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 354-Kha, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Auraiya, District-Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.
The present first information report has been lodged by the father of the victim on 27th May, 2022 at 2233 hrs against the applicant alleging therein that on 24th May, 2022 11.00 p.m., when the wife of the informant went outside the house and the informant himself was sleeping in the hutment as also the victim was sleeping on the cot in her house, the applicant entered and tried to out rage the modesty of the victim. When the victim raised alarm, the informant and some villagers came and on seeing them, the informant ran away.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that for the incident dated 24th May, 2022 the first information report has been lodged on 27th May, 2022 i.e. after three days delay for which no plausible explanation has been given, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. It is then submitted that the present first information report lodged by the informant is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a selfmade story projected by the informant. The real fact is that before the incident in question the informant had taken Rs. 50,000/- as loan from the father of the applicant for treatment of his wife on the assurance that he shall repay the same within two months and after lapse of two months when the father of the applicant demanded the said money, the informant instead of repaying the same, has engineered the present case with false and frivolous allegations. It is further submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has disclosed
the name of the applicant but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has not disclosed the name of the applicant. The victim has also refused to get herself medically examined, which also makes the prosecution case doubtful. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 28th May, 2022. The applicant has undergone more than six months of incarceration.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but they could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient
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.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)
Order Date :- 12.12.2022
Sushil/-
Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.14 10:26:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on bail in a POCSO case involving rape attempt and malicious prosecution allegations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and anotherApplied¶12
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Pradeep @ Lalla
Shiv Shanker Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
