Allowed

Lalji Gond v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2025BAIL/9281/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in a POCSO rape case; court, citing bail-is-the-rule principles from Supreme Court precedent, allowed bail subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence and attendance at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with conditions not to tamper with evidence and to appear before the Trial Court at fixed dates.

Lalji Gond vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53557

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9281 of 2025 Applicant :- Lalji Gond Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta,Raghawendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 4.12.2024.

¶7

In compliance of order dated 20.3.2025 passed by this Court, Dr. Yashasavi Singh, Medical Officer, CHC Bansdih, Ballia, is present in person. She has explained the medical report as mentioned by her in paragraph 17 of the said report. Her presence is dispensed with.

¶8

Heard Sri Sheetal Prasad Chaturvedi, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Raghawendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.D. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 273 of 2024, U/S 65(1) B.N.S. and 5n/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bansdih, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶11

The applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 24.8.2024 at about 1.00 am by coming to the roof of the house by entering her room. The time of offence, as mentioned by the victim speaks of her consent.

¶12

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

¶13

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶14

The FIR is delayed by twenty hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶15

The story as narrated cannot be believed, as the victim has stated that her condition worsened. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that it is stated by the victim that she was sleeping on a cot alongwith his sister.

¶16

The victim has mentioned her age to be 16 years at the stage of her examination before the investigating officer and the Magistrate concerned.

¶17

There is no injury sustained by the victim as per the medical report. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.8.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

¶19

The bail application has been opposed but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant has not been disputed.

¶20

CONCLUSION:

¶21

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.

¶22

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶23

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶24

Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595

¶25

has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” .

¶26

Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶27

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.

¶29

Let the applicant- Lalji Gond involved in aforementioned case crime number 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.

¶30

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶31

(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.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶33

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 .

¶34

Order Date :- 11.4.2025\Shalini

¶35

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lalji Gond v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalji Gond 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radheyshyam vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar vs State of U.P.

Furqan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sent Jons Alias Sent Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramdas vs State of U.P. and 3 Others