Allowed

Prashant Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025BAIL/3683/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Prashant Kushwaha in a criminal case involving rape allegations under IPC and POCSO Act, subject to standard conditions including furnishing surety bonds and adhering to procedural requirements during trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, undertaking not to seek adjournments, and appearance at trial dates.

Prashant Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15941

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3683 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Prashant Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.533 of 2024, under Sections 376DA, 323, 506, 120B IPC and under Section 67 of Information Technology Act and under Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur.

¶8

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Entire family of the applicant has been roped in the present case. As per allegation, the victim, who was aged about 15 years at the time of alleged incident, was a student of class 9 and studying in a coaching situated at Nadipura, Lalitpur and it is alleged that co-accused Pramod Kumar Kushwaha and applicant were continuously harassed the victim and have committed rape upon her. As per high school certificate, the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 27.10.2003 meaning thereby the victim was major at the time of alleged incident. Further contention is that the medical report is also not supported the prosecution story and as per medical report, no internal or external injury found or seen all over the body of the victim. Further contention is that the applicant and the victim has solemnized marriage with each other, copy of marriage photographs is annexed as Annexure No.11 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Further contention is that infact the victim is major but the prosecution has falsely shown the victim as minor just to aggravate the offence and cause the imprisonment of the applicant under the stringent provisions of POCSO Act. Further contention is that as per allegation, main role

¶9

assigned to co-accused Pramod Kumar Kushwaha who has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41801 of 2024. Another coaccused Raj Khan has also been enlarned on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37764 of 2024, copy of bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No.13 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Further contention is that since the similarly placed co-accused against whom allegation of rape has been assigned, has already been enlarged on bail, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before this Court. According to the counsel, the circumstances which aled 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. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.07.2024 having no previous criminal history.

¶11

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 him under Section 229-

¶16

A IPC.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Ajeet

¶24

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

Prashant Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kushwaha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Angad Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj vs State of U.P.

Ram Sagar and Another vs State of U.P.

Rama Shankar vs State of U.P.

Ashish Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Sharma vs State of U.P.