Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34725

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5108 of 2025

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nalin Arora,Anubhav Singh,Ishika Srivastava,Vrishank Pathak

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2025, under Sections 333 and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow.

¶9

As per the prosecution case, the complainant's daughter, aged about 17 years, was alone at her residence on 27.02.2025 at around 11:00 AM, when the applicant, a neighbour allegedly entered the house taking advantage of the situation and molested the victim and also forcibly pressed her mouth. Hearing the alarm, complainant's sister-in-law Kanchan, came and saw the applicant lying over Anshu with his hand over her mouth. She threatened to inform the mother of the victim and locked the door to prevent Rahul from escaping. However, Rahul allegedly managed to flee by climbing over the wall. It is further alleged that due to fear of her parents the victim set herself on fire. As a consequence, she sustained 60 percent burn injuries.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) reveals that no wrongdoing has been attributed to the applicant. In her dying declaration, the victim has clearly stated that she accidentally caught fire from a pipe and that

¶11

no one set her on fire.

¶12

It is submitted that the statements of the independent witness Kanchan and the complainant are at variance. It is further submitted that the incident occurred on 27.02.2025, whereas the First Information Report was lodged after a delay of one day, i.e., on 28.02.2025.

¶13

It is submitted that these are two separate incidents which are sought to be connected by the prosecution. The applicant is nothing to do with the death of the deceased which is evident from the perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased.

¶14

It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and has submitted that the statement under Section 183 BNSS could not be recorded due to the untimely death of the victim.

¶16

Perused the record.

¶17

On due consideration of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., the dying declaration, and the statement of the independent witnesses, as well as the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and has been languishing in jail since 23.02.2025, and the charge-sheet has already been filed in the case, and the complainant has been served as per the written instructions of the learned A.G.A., although no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant, Rahul involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

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

¶24

(v) 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-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(vi) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Order Date :- 5.6.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. 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

Saddam Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Mohd. Wasi Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Imran Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Akhilesh Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sobaran Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.