Budhram vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 307 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Budhram vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 May, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68735
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14561 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Budhram
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Shubham Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 20.04.2025.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.53 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Achalda, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was instituted against unknown person. The victim has stated that her parents were trying to marry elsewhere and she loved the applicant, as such, she had gone with him and married him in Haryana. She has given birth to a baby girl and expressed her willingness to stay with the applicant only. At present, she is living in the house of her parents.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim is major, although her age has been suppressed in her school certificate. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 has stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. It is also settled by Supreme Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party and also taking into consideration the judgments of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar (Supra) and Brij Mohan Singh (Supra), 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.

10. Let the applicant-Budhram, 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.

(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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. 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 :- 1.5.2025

(Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)