Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21995 (ALL)

SAGAR MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/6488/2025 · 2025-05-15

Krishan Pahal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81534 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6488 of 2025 Applicant :- Sagar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 23.02.2025. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.19 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., 2023 and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Tiwaripur, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage as both were known to each other for about seven years. 7. It was revealed subsequently that the applicant was marrying elsewhere, as such, when the victim pressed for marrying her, the applicant and other family members are stated to have threatened them and hurled abuses at them. There are other allegations against the applicant and other family members of having assaulted the sister and brother-in-law of the victim also on 28.12.2024 at about 11:51 a.m. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about 24 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 11. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident and also taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 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. 13. Let the applicant- Sagar Maurya, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad