HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8611 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that approximately 10 months ago, at around 6 PM, when the complainant's minor daughter, aged 14, was alone at home, the accused came to the complainant's house. Finding her alone, he threatened to kill her and then forced her into a physical relationship. When she cried, the accused told her not to tell anyone and promised to marry her. Due to fear of the accused and social stigma, the she did not tell anyone about the incident. Taking unfair advantage of this, the accused, upon finding her alone, forcibly sexually exploited her for one year. When the marriage of the applicant was fixed somewhere else, the complainant's daughter told her mother the entire story. Following this, the complainant reported the incident to the police station and the FIR has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR does not mention any specific date of the alleged incident. It has been lodged through an application under Section 173(4) BNSS without any explanation for the delay. From the FIR as well as the statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it is clear that the FIR was lodged only on account of the applicant’s marriage being fixed elsewhere. No corroborative evidence has been found in the medico-legal examination of the victim. It is highly improbable that the victim was subjected to sexual assault continuously for Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Awadhesh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) eleven months, yet neither disclosed it to anyone nor raised any alarm at any stage. Independent witnesses have stated that the victim was a minor, and for this reason, the parents of the applicant refused the marriage proposal. Consequently, the marriage was declined and the applicant was engaged to another person. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel that earlier also FIR No. 395 of 2022 was registered by the same victim against another person under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, which reflects that the victim is in the habit of falsely implicating innocent persons. No ossification test of the victim has been conducted. Although the applicant’s father and brother were initially implicated, their names were dropped by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet. 5. It is further 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. On due consideration to the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than ten months without mentioning any date of incident; there is lack of corroborative material to support the prosecution case; and the applicant is in jail since 30.07.2025 without any criminal history, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Awadhesh Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 292 of 2025, Under Section 65 (1), 69, 351(3) B.N.S. & 5 (L) / 6 of P.O.C.S.O Act 2012, Police Station - Motipur District - Bahraich, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. BAIL No. 8611 of 2025 2 (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (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. (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. (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 in accordance with law. (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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. September 10, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 8611 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench