Allahabad High Court
Pawan Dhillo vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100640
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20006 of 2025
Applicant :- Pawan Dhillo
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Ashwani Tripathi, learned Advocate (AOR No. 0108/2018), holding brief of Mr. Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer who appears for the State.
This is an application under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, filed on behalf of applicant Pawan Dhillo for enlarging on bail in connection with Case Crime No.57 of 2024, under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, under Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 9,10 & 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Shamli.
Learned State Law Officer has produced before this Court a set of documents to show that notice has been served upon the opposite party No.2. In view of the judgment in the case of Ajeet Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45784 of 2020, the service of notice upon the opposite party No.2 is deemed to be sufficient and till dictation of the order, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No.2.
The instructions filed by learned State Law Officer are taken on the record.
The bail application preferred by the applicant came to be rejected by the Court below on 2.4.2025.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the First Information Report was lodged by the opposite party No.2/victim against the applicant and eight others being F.I.R. No.0057 of 2024 on 23.11.2024 with an allegation that on 16.4.2023 forcefully the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the opposite party No.2 though she was a minor having aged about 10-15 years. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire story cooked up is nothing but a clear cut act of inflicting criminality having no nexus with reality particularly, when the victim/opposite party No.2 used to live with her grand-mother as her parents were no more. Submission is that uncle of the victim namely, Kunwar Pal and grand mother namely, Om Kali got the marriage fixed being an arranged marriage with the applicant and the applicant belongs to rural background could not even imagine in his remotest dream that first informant/victim was a minor. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court towards Page No.102 of the paper books so as to contend that the victim was aged about 17-18 years old. He further submits that in the statement of the grand-mother of the victim, she had also justified the marriage of the victim with the applicant as she being an old lady who was not able to afford the sustainability of the victim. It is also submitted that the uncle of the victim herself had deposed in his statement that the applicant used to come with his family members and victim was quite familiar with the applicant and their relationship was cordial. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has not committed any criminality and rather to the contrary to the statement of the victims leads to conclusion that the marriage was solemnized looking into the interest of the victim by the grand-mother and uncle of the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention towards para 29 of the application so as to contend that the applicant does not possess any criminal history and applicant is languishing in jail since 8.1.2025.
Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be but the marriage stood solemnized of the victim who was a minor but he could not dispute the fact that the in the statement of the grand-mother and uncle of the victim, the marriage was arranged marriage and their relationship was cordial.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail as the applicant does not possess criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 08.01.2025 and there is nothing on record to suggest that post enlargement on bail, the applicant would tamper with the evidences.
Let applicant - Pawan Dhillo be released on bail in Case Crime No.57 of 2024, under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, under Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 9,10 & 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Shamli on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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 an abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authority concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail. Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Court Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.6.2025
Sachin
