Paras Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33036

Court No. - 35

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3240 of 2025

Applicant :- Paras Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶7

This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39821 of 2023.

¶8

Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.262 of 2023, under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 67-A Information Technology Act, Police Station- Sikandara, District- Agra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

The per prosecution story, victim herself lodged an FIR on 14.12.2022 alleging therein that the applicant along with his 8-10 boys entered in her house and molested and beaten her, in relation to which a case was registered. After being released from jail, the applicant edited the photo of Arpita Dubey, who is her younger sister, and three elder sisters and made it viral by posting it on a fake Instagram ID. It is also alleged that the applicant wanted to defame her and her four sisters and threatened to kill her entire family. It is also alleged that on 23.03.2023, applicant came to her house and beaten her and tried to force himself on her. It is also alleged that the applicant showed her obscene photos of her sisters and at that time she was alone at home.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

¶12

applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially, the impugned FIR was lodged under Sections 452, 506, 323, 354(kha) IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act in which the applicant has already been granted bail by the court below, thereafter, during investigation, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Section 376 IPC and Section 67-A of I.T. Act have been added, thereafter, the applicant approached before the court below for bail in added sections which was rejected by the court below, hence, the present bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident took place on 23.3.2023 whereas the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation on 16.4.2023 i.e. about 23 days of the alleged incident but no plausible explanation regarding delay has been mentioned. Medical does not support the prosecution story. There are major contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that earlier, the victim has filed an FIR against the applicant in which, the applicant has already been granted bail by the court below. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the proceedings of the court below where non-bailable warrant has been issued against the victim vide order dated 9.12.2024. He further submits that charge sheet has been submitted and there are 12 witnesses and till date, only one witness i.e. P.W.1 has been examined in chief before the trial Court, therefore, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future.

¶13

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.7.2023 having no criminal history.

¶14

Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Paras Rajpoot, 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.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶18

(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 her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(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., may be issued and if 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.

¶20

(iv) 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. 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.

¶21

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Krishna*

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Paras Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Rajpoot v. State of U.P. 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