Haricharan Gaur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32621

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3354 of 2025

Applicant :- Haricharan Gaur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pratibha Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 22.1.2025.

¶8

Heard Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.68 of 2024, under Sections 376(3), 363, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Babhani, District- Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person are stated to have committed rape with the victims V1 and V2, who are family members of the informant, on 6.6.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No time of offence is mentioned in the FIR, although it is mentioned that victim had left the house at 07:00 a.m., but the said time of leaving the house stands contradicted from the statements of the victim recorded U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is a clear cut case of false implication. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the statement of two witnesses recorded regarding the incident being told to them by phone stands contradicted regarding the date of offence also. The victim V1 is major and as per the ossification test report, her age has come out to be between 18-19 years.

¶12

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 applicant is languishing in jail since 10.6.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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 .

¶16

Let the applicant- Haricharan Gaur , 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 not tamper with evidence.

¶18

(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.

¶19