Om Prakash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34640 of 2025

Om Prakash

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gyanendra Kumar Mishra, Jitendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 65

¶5

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶6

Despite service of notice none has appeared on behalf of informant even in the revised call.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged in unknown with the allegation that on 22.06.2025 at about 6:00 p.m. three minor girls of the informant's family including his one daughter went to ease herself in agricultural field along with the son of informant, who when returned told the informant that his minor daughter asked his son to go to home as they are going to Banda at the house of their maternal uncle, but they do not reach there and are missing. On this information the police came into action and after search police found all the three girls on the same day at about 03:43 a.m. of the same night of the alleged incident. After recovery of these three girls their statements under Section 180 BNSS were recorded, in which they do not make any allegation of rape against the applicant or anyone. One girl, i.e., victim of the present case in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has made allegation against the applicant that he touched her, thereafter, she states that he committed overt act with here, thereafter, she denied for that, then again she changed her statement, thus, in this statement she changed her version several times, and her statement is not reliable and trustworthy. In her medical examination no external or internal injury was found on her person, her hymen was found old ruptured and healed and her age was found to be about 17 years, thus, taking benefit of two years either side the victim is major. Learned counsel further submits that since the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant and in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS she has changed her version several times and such statement is not reliable and trustworthy, it appears that victim was a

¶9

BAIL No. 34640 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

consenting party and applicant has falsely been implicated. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also 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 and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.06.2025, with no criminal history.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶13

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant-Om Prakash, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 87 of B.N.S. and Section 4(2) of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police StationAtarra, District- Banda, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶16

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶19

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶21

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶22

November 6, 2025 Mustaqeem.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

Krishna Alias Kishan Chauhan vs State of U.P.

Faeem vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ganga @ Ajhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Danish vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar Sharma vs State of U.P.

Balbir Adhana vs State of U.P. and Another