Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7481 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 978 of 2025 Applicant :- Umesh Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Abhishek Mishra,Dinesh Bahadur Singh,Som Nath Gupta,Vimal Kishore Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Rafiya Farooqui, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anjani Kumar Shukla, Advocate has filed 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of complainant / victim, same is taken on record. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 5.7.2024 in Case Crime No. 27 of 2024 u/s 363,366, 376 IPC and section 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Kunda, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that initially the F.I.R. has been registered u/s 363, 366 IPC but after completion of the investigation charge-sheet has been filed u/s 376 IPC and POCSO Act. 4. Attention has been drawn towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has not levelled any allegation of rape against the present applicant, rather she has stated that she had gone with the applicant willingly without any influence. The prosecutrix had refused to undergo medical examination. Her evidence has been recorded before the learned trial court wherein she has not levelled any allegation of rape against the present applicant rather has stated that the relation between the parties is consensual in nature. The prosecutrix has stated before the Court that at the time of incident in question she was 18 years old and presently she is 19 years old. The P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have turned hostile. The applicant has no criminal history. Charge- sheet has been filed in this case. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has not levelled any allegation of rape against the present applicant, rather she has stated that she had gone with the applicant willingly without any influence, the prosecutrix had refused to undergo medical examination, the evidence of prosecutrix has been recorded before the learned trial court wherein she has not levelled any allegation of rape against the present applicant rather has stated that the relation between the parties is consensual in nature and that at the time of incident in question she was 18 years old and presently she is 19 years old, the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have turned hostile, applicant has no criminal history, charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Umesh Gautam, involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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. (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-A of the Indian Penal Code. (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 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. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. . (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 5.2.2025/Om Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench