Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 217 (ALL)

Sarfaraz Khan v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Sri Abhishek Mishra, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of the complainant. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Akhlaq Ali, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Alok Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant Sarfaraz is languishing in jail since 09.12.2024 in Case Crime No.0275/2024, under Sections 69, 89, 352, 351 (3) of B.N.S. Act, 2023 , Police Station Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. 5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.), which has been lodged on 06.12.2024 of the alleged incident dated 02.12.2024 without explaining the delay. In the F.I.R., the allegations have been levelled against four accused persons including the present applicant. As per the F.I.R., the present applicant and the prosecutrix were in relation for the last eight years, when both were minor. The present applicant allegedly promised to get married with the prosecutrix, but now he is denying for such promise. On the pretext of false promise of marriage, he established physical relation with her. While recording her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has stated that she is having relation with the applicant for last nine years and during that period they established physical relation and she became pregnant for three to four times and the applicant provided pills for abortion and the pregnancy aborted after taking pills. The allegation of assault and beating as well as snatching the phone has also been levelled. While recording her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she has stated that she was in relation with the applicant for last 10 years and she reiterated the other story narrated in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S.. In this statement she has stated that she had gone to a clinic of one doctor for getting her pregnancy aborted, but there is no material or evidence with the prosecution in the case diary to suggest that the prosecutrix had gone to the clinic of any doctor to get her pregnancy aborted. 6. In this statement she has stated that she had gone to a clinic of one doctor for getting her pregnancy aborted, but there is no material or evidence with the prosecution in the case diary to suggest that the prosecutrix had gone to the clinic of any doctor to get her pregnancy aborted. 6. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that so far as allegation is concerned, the story is more-or-less intact, but the period of relation has not been indicated same in all the statements. Besides, if the applicant forcefully had compelled the prosecutrix to take pills for abortion any prompt compliant etc could have been lodged, but no such compliant has been lodged. Presently, the applicant is aged about 22 years and the prosecutrix is aged about 24 years and if the prosecution story is taken on its face value, then both were in love affairs when they were minor and have established physical relation during that period. If the investigating agency had received such material or evidence, the impugned F.I.R. might have been lodged under the provisions of POCSO Act, besides the Section under which this F.I.R. has been lodged. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case only against the present applicant, as the other co-accused persons have been dropped from the charge-sheet. There is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the complianant have opposed the prayer for bail. Sri Abhishek Mishra has stated that the present applicant has exploited the prosecutrix for last couple of years on the pretext of false promise of marriage and now he is denying for such marriage. Sri Mishra has further stated that the prosecutrix is still ready to get married with the applicant, as she is in love affairs with the applicant, therefore, as per Sri Mishra, any direction may be issued to the applicant to consider this aspect of the issue. 9. Sri Mishra has further stated that the prosecutrix is still ready to get married with the applicant, as she is in love affairs with the applicant, therefore, as per Sri Mishra, any direction may be issued to the applicant to consider this aspect of the issue. 9. Be that as it may, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that the applicant and prosecutrix were allegedly in love affairs for last couple of years and have allegedly established physical relation on the pretext of promise of marriage, though no prompt F.I.R. has been lodged, when the applicant allegedly compelled the prosecutrix to get pills to get her pregnancy aborted and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant-Sarfaraz Khan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (v) It is needless to say that if the parties come on any amicable solution during the course of trial, the learned trial court may examine that aspect.