Pappu Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin, Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the minor daughter of the informant aged about 13 years is being molested by the applicant for the last one year. Out of fear, the victim has left going to school. It is alleged that on 4.7.2024 at about 06.00 pm, while she went towards the field, the applicant dragged her inside the sugarcane field and disrobed her.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in the statement under Section 180 BNSS has made an improvement and an allegation of rape has been made against the applicant. The victim while giving her statement under Section 183 BNSS has further made an improvement. He submits that there is lack of corroborative medical evidence in support of the prosecution case. The victim at the time of the incident was 14 years, 4 months and 10 days old. No ossification test of the victim has been conducted. It is submitted that the victim has been examined before the trial court and she has not supported the prosecution case during cross-

¶14

BAIL No. 203 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

examination.

¶17

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 31.8.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the improvements made by the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS so also the fact that there is lack of corroborative medical evidence in support of the prosecution case; the victim herself has not supported the prosecution case during cross-examination; there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence coupled with the fact that t he applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 31.8.2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Pappu Gautam involved in Case Crime No. 207 of 2024, under Sections 76, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 65(1) of B.N.S. & Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station- Khamariya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, 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:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) 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.

¶25

BAIL No. 203 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(iv) 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.

¶28

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶29

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

September 8, 2025 Shravan

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pappu Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin, Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin, Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhagwandeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neetu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Jabaaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.