Shreepal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Shreepal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicant Shreepal on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned, subject to: (i) not tampering with prosecution evidence; (ii) not pressurizing prosecution witnesses; (iii) appearing on each date fixed by the trial court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Shreepal, booked in Case Crime No. 391 of 2024 under Sections 64(2) (F) BNS and Section 3/5 J(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PS Sursa, District Hardoi) for the alleged rape of the informant's 17-year-old daughter causing pregnancy, should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Considering the delay between the alleged incident (July 2024) and lodging of the FIR (December 2024), the applicant's advanced age of about 80 years, absence of criminal history, and the concluded investigation, the facts were sufficient to make out a case for enlarging the applicant on bail, without any observation affecting the merits.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed; the applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses, and shall appear on each date fixed by the trial court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Rape of a 17-year-old resulting in pregnancy — Ss. 64(2)(F) BNS & 3/5 J(ii) POCSO Act, 2012 — Case Crime No. 391 of 2024, PS Sursa, District Hardoi. Applicant Shreepal, aged about 80 years, no criminal history, in custody since 12.12.2024. FIR lodged 07.12.2024, roughly five months after the alleged incident of July 2024; medico-legal examination of 09.12.2024 showed no injury marks or signs of force, urine pregnancy test positive, radiological age 17 years; investigation concluded and charge sheet filed 14.01.2025 despite opposition from the learned A.G.A.-I. Weighing the delay between incident and FIR, the applicant's age and clean antecedents, the single-judge bench held the facts sufficient for enlargement on bail and allowed the application: release on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, conditioned on non-tampering with prosecution evidence, non-pressurization of prosecution witnesses, and appearance on every date fixed by the trial court, without prejudice to the merits. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J., 27.3.2025)

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17954

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2619 of 2025 Applicant :- Shreepal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Raghunath Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

Heard Sri Raghunath Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A.-I and perused the records.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 391 of 2024, under Sections 64(2) (F) BNS and Section 3/5 J(ii) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Sursa, District Hardoi.

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 07.12.2024 alleging that the applicant had raped the daughter of the informant aged 17 years in the month of July 2024 due to which she got pregnant.

The victim stated that the applicant is a relative of her and he had raped her.

The medico legal examination of the victim was conducted on 09.12.2024 which mentions no mark of injury or sign or use of force. The urine pregnancy test was positive. Radiological age of the victim has been assigned to be 17 years, however, nothing has been stated regarding the age of pregnancy.

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an old person aged about 80 years and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since

12.12.2024. The investigation stands concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted on 14.01.2025.

The learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the applicants are serious in nature and as the same have been established in investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident allegedly took place in the month of July, 2024 whereas the FIR has been lodged in the month of December; that the applicant is an 80 years old person having no criminal history whereas the investigation stands concluded and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

Let the applicant- Shreepal be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

Order Date :- 27.3.2025 (Manoj K.)

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