Allowed

Tapas Rai v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2025BAIL/3216/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal bail application filed by Tapas Rai, a prisoner in Case Crime No.104 of 2024 involving offenses under Sections 354, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail by relying on Supreme Court precedents without examining merits in detail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to standard conditions.

Tapas Rai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32375

¶2

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3216 of 2025 Applicant :- Tapas Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh,Rupa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

List has been revised.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 26.1.2025.

¶6

Heard Smt. Rupa, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shaym Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.104 of 2024, under Sections 354, 376, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4/5J(ii)/6/7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Babhani, District- Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have befriended the victim on the pretext of getting her treated, as such, established corporeal relationship with her. The applicant is even stated to have established the said relationship on the false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to comply with the said promise and got her pregnancy terminated several times. There are other allegations against the applicant in the FIR also.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is major aged about 21 years. The allegations are per se false. Learned counsel has stated that the allegations have been inflated to get the matter fall within the category of POCSO Act. The applicant is a married person and the case to the maximum may fall within the category of adultery.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The

¶11

applicant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Tapas Rai , 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.3.2025/ Vikas

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tapas Rai v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapas Rai v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases