# Arun Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 750
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 9861 of 2025
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-53261
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 313 & 377 - Bail - Allegation of
rape on false promise of marriage -
Consent - Adult prosecutrix - Delay of five
months in FIR - Relationship admitted to
be consensual - Admitted deletion of
charges under Sections 313 & 377 I.P.C. -
Disputed marital status - Prima facie no
intention to deceive from inception -
Courts
not
to
criminalise
failed
relationships - Law does not enforce all
aspects of morality - Bail granted. (Paras
5, 30 to 42)

HELD:

This case is reflective of a broader societal shift,
where
the
sanctity
and
solemnity
once
associated with intimate relationships have seen
a marked decline. The prevalence of transient
and uncommitted relationships, often formed
and dissolved at will, raises critical questions
about individual responsibility and the misuse of
legal
provisions,
especially
when
such
4 All. Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
751
relationships turn sour. It is increasingly
observed that personal fallouts and emotional
discord are being given a criminal colour,
through
the
invocation
of
penal
laws,
particularly in the aftermath of failed intimate
relationships. (Para 31)

The instant FIR, instituted after the relationship
between the applicant and the victim fell apart,
appears to be a product of such emotional
aftermath rather than a bona fide grievance of
criminal
wrongdoing.
The
timing
and
circumstances surrounding the filing of the
complaint suggest a retaliatory motive rather
than a genuine pursuit of justice. (Para 32)

Not all socially or ethically questionable actions
warrant legal intervention. It also reflects a
foundational principle in jurisprudence - the
law does not enforce all aspects of morality.
(Para 33)

The well-known principle of "Presumption of
Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to
the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment
as an exception. (Para 37)

It is settled principle of law that the object of
bail is to secure the attendance of the accused
at
the
trial.
No
material
particulars
or
circumstances suggestive of the applicant
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of
justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and
the like have been shown by learned AGA. (Para
41)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Sheikh Arif Vs The St. of Mah. & anr., 2024
INSC 70

2.Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
2025 INSC 308

3.SLP (Crl.) No.1889/2024 (Nitin B. Nikhare Vs
The St. of Mah. & anr.)

4.Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs St. of Mah. &
anr., 2019 (9) SCC 608

5.Ansaar Mohammad Vs St. of Raj. & anr., 2022
SCC OnLine SC 886

6.Niranjan Singh & anr. Vs Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote & ors., AIR 1980 SC 785

7.Prabhakar Tewari Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2020
(11) SCC 648

8.Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & ors., 2022 INSC 690

9.Manish Sisodia Vs Directorate of Enforcement,
2024 INSC 595

## Text

750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lodged in Police Station Pura Kalander,
District Ayodhya under Sections 351(3)
B.N.S. alleging that a witness in the present
case, Suneel Yadav received a phone call
on 09.01.2025 from some unknown person
who introduced himself as Ritesh who
threatened the said person not to give
evidence in the matter. The Telephone call
is
said
to
have
been
received
on
09.01.2025, whereas the FIR has been
lodged on 09.02.2025. The FIR makes no
mention of the applicant s name and there
is no allegation that the phone call had been
made at the behest of the applicant. The
exact conversation that took place in that
phone call has not been reproduced in the
F.I.R. Therefore, I am of the considered
view that lodging of the aforesaid FIR a
month after receipt of the alleged phone
call, does not make any difference while
considering the bail application of the
applicant.

25. Having considered all the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that the aforesaid
facts are sufficient for making out a case
for enlargement of the applicant on bail in
the aforesaid crime. However, it is clarified
that the observations made in this order
would not affect the outcome of the trial.

26. Let the applicant- Rajeev Yadav
alias Rinku be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount
to
the
satisfaction
of
magistrate/court concerned, subject to
following conditions: -

(i) the applicant shall not tamper
with the prosecution evidence;

(ii)
the
applicant
shall
not
pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on
each and every date fixed by the trial court,
unless his appearance is exempted by the
learned trial court.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 750
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 9861 of 2025

Arun Kumar Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, Sri R.B. Tripathi, Sri
Anoop Trivedi (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Devendra Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 313 & 377 - Bail - Allegation of
rape on false promise of marriage -
Consent - Adult prosecutrix - Delay of five
months in FIR - Relationship admitted to
be consensual - Admitted deletion of
charges under Sections 313 & 377 I.P.C. -
Disputed marital status - Prima facie no
intention to deceive from inception -
Courts
not
to
criminalise
failed
relationships - Law does not enforce all
aspects of morality - Bail granted. (Paras
5, 30 to 42)

HELD:

This case is reflective of a broader societal shift,
where
the
sanctity
and
solemnity
once
associated with intimate relationships have seen
a marked decline. The prevalence of transient
and uncommitted relationships, often formed
and dissolved at will, raises critical questions
about individual responsibility and the misuse of
legal
provisions,
especially
when
such
4 All. Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
751
relationships turn sour. It is increasingly
observed that personal fallouts and emotional
discord are being given a criminal colour,
through
the
invocation
of
penal
laws,
particularly in the aftermath of failed intimate
relationships. (Para 31)

The instant FIR, instituted after the relationship
between the applicant and the victim fell apart,
appears to be a product of such emotional
aftermath rather than a bona fide grievance of
criminal
wrongdoing.
The
timing
and
circumstances surrounding the filing of the
complaint suggest a retaliatory motive rather
than a genuine pursuit of justice. (Para 32)

Not all socially or ethically questionable actions
warrant legal intervention. It also reflects a
foundational principle in jurisprudence - the
law does not enforce all aspects of morality.
(Para 33)

The well-known principle of "Presumption of
Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to
the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment
as an exception. (Para 37)

It is settled principle of law that the object of
bail is to secure the attendance of the accused
at
the
trial.
No
material
particulars
or
circumstances suggestive of the applicant
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of
justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and
the like have been shown by learned AGA. (Para
41)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Sheikh Arif Vs The St. of Mah. & anr., 2024
INSC 70

2.Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
2025 INSC 308

3.SLP (Crl.) No.1889/2024 (Nitin B. Nikhare Vs
The St. of Mah. & anr.)

4.Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs St. of Mah. &
anr., 2019 (9) SCC 608

5.Ansaar Mohammad Vs St. of Raj. & anr., 2022
SCC OnLine SC 886

6.Niranjan Singh & anr. Vs Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote & ors., AIR 1980 SC 785

7.Prabhakar Tewari Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2020
(11) SCC 648

8.Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & ors., 2022 INSC 690

9.Manish Sisodia Vs Directorate of Enforcement,
2024 INSC 595

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Anup Triwedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nitin
Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Devendra Singh, learned
counsel for the informant as well as Sri
Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case
No.3227/IX/24 (State vs. Arun Kumar
Mishra), arising out of Case Crime
No.0035 of 2024, under Sections 323, 376,
420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahila
Thana,
District-
Banda,
during
the
pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The informant joined the Old
Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi Branch of Yes
Bank
as
Relationship
Manager.
The
applicant is stated to be an account holder
in the said bank. He is stated to have
offered the victim/informant the job of his
personal assistant in his company for a
salary of Rs.75,000/- per month alongwith
accommodation and other perks. The
informant joined the company of the
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant after resigning from the bank on
2.1.2024.

5. On 12.1.2024 at about 09:30 p.m.,
the applicant is stated to have suddenly
come to the house of the informant
alongwith cold coffee and stated that he has
got a huge profit in the company, as such,
he shall give her gifts. After consuming the
said coffee, the victim is stated to have got
intoxicated, as such, the applicant disrobed
her completely and committed rape with
her as she could not resist being intoxicated
by the said spiked coffee. The applicant is
even stated to have video recorded the said
act and subsequently started blackmailing
her.

6. On 13.1.2024, the applicant took
the victim by flight to Mumbai and got a
room booked in Taj Hotel on the basis of
her Aadhar Card. On 15.1.2024 the
applicant took her to somewhere else and
got her to sign on some papers and
conducted Saptapadi and added vermilion
to her forehead. On 16.1.2024 the duo
returned to Delhi and the rape and
unnatural offence continued thereafter.

7. On 17.2.2024, the applicant is
stated to have come to the house of her aunt
at Baberu, district Banda and committed
rape with her by showing an indecent video
of her and asked her to come alongwith
him to Delhi where he shall marry her as he
has divorced his wife and she was forced to
go alongwith him to Delhi.

8. On 20.2.2024, the informant told
the applicant that she was pregnant. On
4.3.2024, she was informed by the first
wife of the applicant that he already has
married three women prior to the informant
and had children from each of them.

9. The victim was again forced by the
applicant to come to Golden Tulip Hotel,
Lucknow on 28.3.2024 and was raped
again. The applicant is stated to have hit the
victim, thereby, leading to termination of
her pregnancy. The applicant is even stated
to have taken possession of all the
educational
documents
in
original
alongwith her clothes and ornaments and
had promised to marry her in January,
2024.

10. The informant is stated to have
gone to her parental home on 29.4.2024 to
prepare
for
the
said
marriage,
but
subsequently, the applicant is stated to have
refused to comply with the said promise of
marriage telephonically and informed her
that he had forged certain documents and
had shown her marriage to have been
solemnized at Arya Samaj Temple. The
applicant is even stated to have retained her
salary.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT:

11. The applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present case.

12. The FIR is delayed by about six
months and there is no explanation of the
said delay caused. The victim failed to
report the matter at the time of first
consensual
relationship
established
in
January, 2024.

13. The applicant had challenged the
first information report before this Court by
filing
Criminal
Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.10952 of 2024, whereby he was granted
interim
protection
vide
order
dated
1.7.2024.
4 All. Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
753

14.

The
victim
has
given
contradictory statements U/s 161 & 164
Cr.P.C. to the version of the FIR.

15. The Investigating Officer has
exonerated the applicant of offences of
Sections 313 and 377 I.P.C., as such, the
prosecution story stands falsified, as there
is no evidence on record regarding
miscarriage and unnatural offence.

16. It is clear that victim was in
relationship
with
the
applicant.
The
Whatsapp chats between them have been
filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed
with bail application. The victim had
visited several places with the applicant,
namely, Mumbai, Shirdi and stayed at
several hotels booked jointly in the name
of applicant and herself. The details of
the journey including air tickets and hotel
bookings have been filed as Annexure-6
to the affidavit filed with bail application.

17. The informant herein got
instituted an FIR No.753 of 2024, under
Sections 70, 308(5), 351(3), 123 and
115(2) B.N.S. at Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, District Banda through her friend
and and the Investigating Officer was
pleased to file closure report in the said
case. Although a protest petition was filed
by the said informant in that case.

18. It is true that applicant is a
married person and he fell in love with
the victim and established corporeal
relationship with her. The victim is a
major lady aged about 30 years and
applicant is aged about 42 years, as such,
the said relationship was consensual one.
It is true that the said relationship is not
legitimate, but it is not a case of rape
either. The offence may fall within the
category of Section 494 I.P.C. only,
which is triable by Magistrate of First
Class.

19. The instant case may fall within
the category of immorality, but it cannot
be termed as penal, which implies that the
act in question might be considered
unethical or wrong by societal or moral
standards, but it does not necessarily
violate any law that prescribes a legal
punishment.

20. The allegations that applicant
had married three women earlier on are
false.

21. Several other submissions have
been made on behalf of the applicant to
demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against him. The circumstances
which, as per counsel, led to the false
implication of the applicant have also been
touched upon at length.

22. The applicant has no other
criminal antecedent to his credit except one
case instituted against him at district Banda
at the behest of informant in the instant
case. The applicant is languishing in jail
since 8.1.2025. The applicant is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant
is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail

23. Much reliance has been placed on
paragraphs 12 & 13 in the judgment of the
Supreme Court passed in Sheikh Arif vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Another1,
which read as under:-

"12) If this material, which is a
part of the investigation papers, is perused
carefully, it is obvious that the physical
relationship between the appellant and the
second respondent was consensual, at least
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from 2013 to 2017. The fact that they were
engaged was admitted by the second
respondent. The fact that in 2011, the
appellant proposed her and in 2017, there
was engagement is accepted by the second
respondent. In fact, she participated in the
engagement ceremony without any protest.
However, she has denied that her marriage
was solemnised with the appellant. Taking
the prosecution case as correct, it is not
possible
to
accept
that
the
second
respondent
maintained
a
physical
relationship only because the appellant had
given a promise of marriage.

13) Thus, in our view, the
continuation of the prosecution in the
present case will be a gross abuse of the
process of law. Therefore, no purpose will
be served by continuing the prosecution."

24. Reliance has also been placed on
paragraphs 34 & 35 in the judgment of the
Supreme Court passed in Rajnish Singh @
Soni vs. State of U.P. and Another2,
which read as under:-

"34. It is trite that there is a
distinction between rape and consensual
intercourse. This Court in Deepak Gulati v.
State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675
differentiated between a mere breach of
promise and not fulfilling a false promise
and held that an accused will only be liable
if the Courts concludes that his intentions
are mala fide and he has clandestine
motives. The relevant extract is reproduced
hereinbelow: -

"21. Consent may be express or
implied, coerced or misguided, obtained
willingly or through deceit. Consent is an
act of reason, accompanied by deliberation,
the mind weighing, as in a balance, the
good and evil on each side. There is a
clear
distinction
between
rape
and
consensual sex and in a case like this, the
court
must
very
carefully
examine
whether the accused had actually wanted
to marry the victim, or had mala fide
motives, and had made a false promise to
this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the
latter falls within the ambit of cheating or
deception. There is a distinction between
the mere breach of a promise, and not
fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court
must examine whether there was made, at
an early stage a false promise of marriage
by the accused; and whether the consent
involved
was
given
after
wholly
understanding the nature and consequences
of sexual indulgence. There may be a case
where the prosecutrix agrees to have
sexual intercourse on account of her love
and passion for the accused, and not
solely on account of misrepresentation
made to her by the accused, or where an
accused on account of circumstances
which he could not have foreseen, or
which were beyond his control, was
unable to marry her, despite having every
intention to do so. Such cases must be
treated differently. An accused can be
convicted for rape only if the court
reaches a conclusion that the intention of
the accused was mala fide, and that he
had clandestine motives.
. . .

24. Hence, it is evident that there
must be adequate evidence to show that at
the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage
itself, the accused had no intention
whatsoever, of keeping his promise to
marry the victim. There may, of course, be
circumstances, when a person having the
best of intentions is unable to marry the
victim owing to various unavoidable
circumstances. The "failure to keep a
promise made with respect to a future
uncertain date, due to reasons that are not
very clear from the evidence available,
does not always amount to misconception
4 All. Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
755
of fact. In order to come within the meaning
of the term "misconception of fact", the fact
must have an immediate relevance".
Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in
such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl
in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on
the other, unless the court is assured of the
fact that from the very beginning, the
accused had never really intended to marry
her."
(emphasis supplied)

35. It is, therefore, clear that the
accused is not liable for the offence of rape
if the victim has wilfully agreed to maintain
sexual relations. The Court has also
recognised that a prosecutrix can agree to
have sexual intercourse on account of her
love and passion for the accused."

25. Reliance has also been placed on
paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 in the judgment of the
Supreme Court passed in SLP (Crl.)
No.1889/2024 (Nitin B. Nikhare vs. The
State of Maharashtra and Another), which
read as under:-

6. This Court in a catena of
judgments has held that the mere fact that
physical
relations
were
established
pursuant to a promise to marry will not
amount to a rape in every case. In order
for the offence of rape to be made out,
two conditions need to be satisfied i.e.
that the promise of marriage was made
by the accused solely with a view to
obtain consent for sexual relations
without having any intention of fulfilling
said promise from the very beginning,
and that the false promise of marriage
had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix
giving her consent for sexual relations.
[See: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The
State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2019) 9
SCC 608; Mahesh Damu Khare v. The
State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 347]

7. From a perusal of the record,
it is clear that this was a case of a
consensual
relationship
from
the
beginning. Even if the case of the
prosecutrix is accepted, it does not
appear that the initial promise to marry
was in bad faith. It was 3 only the
subsequent circumstances that prevented
fulfilment of alleged false promise to
marry.
Resultantly,
the
relationship
turned sour which has given rise to the
present FIR. Further, in view of the
material on record, we do not see this as
a case where provisions of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act can be attracted.

8. Hence, the entire criminal
proceedings
initiated
against
the
appellant are nothing but an abuse of the
process of law. In our opinion the High
Court should have exercised its inherent
power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
to
quash
the
proceedings."

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

26. It is argued by learned counsel
for the informant that the applicant is
already married to three other ladies and
is a casanova and is used to luring
different
women
into
consensual
relationships. The statements of two other
ladies in addition to his wife have been
recorded by the Investigating Officer who
have categorically stated that applicant was
married to one XXXX and subsequent to it
married two other ladies and had children
from each of them.

27. The applicant is a rich person and
he has misused his money and clout,
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thereby,
ruined
the
life
of
the
victim/informant in the instant case.

28. The victim is about 25 years old
and applicant had forged the marriage
certificate
purported
to
have
been
solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Greater
Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar. This Court
had ordered for a detailed inquiry against
the persons running the said temple, as
such, the applicant is not entitled for
bail, having forged the said documents
of marriage.

29. It is further argued that in Case
Crime No.753 of 2024 instituted against
the applicant at police station Kotwali
Nagar,
district
Banda,
the
C.J.M.
concerned was pleased to order for
further investigation in the case and
observed that complete investigation
undertaken earlier was tainted.

CONCLUSION:

30. In the present case, it is
imperative to bring to the fore the
changing
dynamics
and
depleting
standards of sexual relationships in
contemporary society. The victim, with
full and conscious knowledge of the
applicant's previous marital historyhaving been married thrice before, chose
to establish a corporeal relationship with
him. This relationship, while mutual and
consensual during its subsistence, did
not conform to the traditionally accepted
institution of marriage or any form of
legally recognized union. While the
emotional and romantic dynamics may
not appear traditionally polyamorous,
the
relationship
is
consensual
and
involves two mature individuals the
alleged victim, approximately 25 years
old, and the applicant, about 42.

31. This case is reflective of a
broader societal shift, where the sanctity
and solemnity once associated with
intimate
relationships
have
seen
a
marked decline. The prevalence of
transient and uncommitted relationships,
often formed and dissolved at will, raises
critical
questions
about
individual
responsibility and the misuse of legal
provisions,
especially
when
such
relationships turn sour. It is increasingly
observed that personal fallouts and
emotional discord are being given a
criminal colour, through the invocation of
penal laws, particularly in the aftermath
of failed intimate relationships.

32. The instant FIR, instituted after
the relationship between the applicant
and the victim fell apart, appears to be a
product of such emotional aftermath
rather than a bona fide grievance of
criminal wrongdoing. The timing and
circumstances surrounding the filing of
the complaint suggest a retaliatory motive
rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

33. Not all socially or ethically
questionable
actions
warrant
legal
intervention.
It
also
reflects
a
foundational principle in jurisprudence -
the law does not enforce all aspects of
morality.

34. The Supreme Court in case of
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another3 and Ansaar
Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and
Another4 has stated that entering into any
kind of corporeal relationship with a
person on the false promise to marry cannot
be termed as rape.

35. In light of the judgement of the
Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh
4 All. Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.
757
and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote and others5, this Court has
avoided
detailed
examination
of
the
evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merits of the case as no party should
have the impression that his case has been
prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of
case is needed but it is not the same as an
exhaustive exploration of the merits in the
order itself.

36. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar
Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another6 has
observed that pendency of several criminal
cases against an accused itself cannot be a
basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his
case of bail is made out.

37. The well-known principle of
"Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven
Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as
a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

38. A person's right to life and liberty,
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, cannot be taken away simply
because
the
person
is
accused
of
committing an offence until the guilt is
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states
that no one's life or personal liberty may be
taken
away
unless
the
procedure
established by law is followed, and the
procedure must be just and reasonable.
The
said
principle
has
been
recapitulated by the Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and Ors.7.

39. Reiterating the aforesaid view
the Supreme Court in the case of
Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement8 has again emphasised
that the very well-settled principle of
law that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment is not to be forgotten. It is
high time that the Courts should
recognize the principle that "bail is a
rule and jail is an exception".

40. Learned AGA could not bring
forth any exceptional circumstances
which would warrant denial of bail to
the applicant.

41. It is settled principle of law
that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial.
No
material
particulars
or
circumstances
suggestive
of
the
applicant
fleeing
from
justice
or
thwarting the course of justice or
creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating
offences
or
intimidating
witnesses and the like have been shown
by learned AGA.

42. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties,
the evidence on record, taking into
consideration that it is also admitted to
both the parties that Sections 313 & 377
I.P.C. have been deleted coupled by the
fact that FIR is delayed by about five
months and the victim being a well
qualified lady, the case law referred 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.

43. Let the applicant- Arun
Kumar
Mishra
involved
in
aforementioned case crime number be
released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following conditions.
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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.

44. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail. Identity, status and
residence proof of the applicant and
sureties be verified by the court concerned
before the bonds are accepted.

45. 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.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 758
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 25993 of 2024

Smt. Rekha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rahul Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., R.P.S. Chauhan

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 1950 - Bail - Incarceration of
mother with minor child - Child's right to
education, development, and dignity - Art.
21-A of Constitution -Article 15 (3), 39€,
39(f), and 47 of the Constitution of India-
"Default confinement" of minor due to
rejection
of
mother's
bail
-
Legal
obligation of St. and Courts to protect
rights of jail-residing children - Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act 2015- Legal Services Authorities Act
1987-Right
of
Children
to
Free and
Compulsory Education Act 2009-UP Jail
Manual 2022-Model Prison Manual, 2016-
Comprehensive
directions
issued
for
welfare, schooling, and individual care
plans of children in jail - Court's power
under bail jurisdiction extends to enforce
constitutional mandates for child welfare
- Directive to ensure education of children
in jail outside prison premises - Rights of
children not to be sacrificed due to
parental custody - Children are entitled to
holistic
development,
not
custodial
upbringing-Bail
application
of
mother
dismissed-Trial expedited. (Paras 8, 9, 12,
13, 18, 24, 25, 26, 34, 40, 41, 44, 56,
63,71, 82, 87, 94, and 114)

HELD:

Fair administration of justice in bail jurisdiction
commands this Court to ensure that adverse
consequences accruing to the child as a result of
rejection of the bail application of their parent
(mother in this case) are mitigated and the
rights of minor children of inmates residing in
jails are protected. (Para 8)

Constitutional status of this Court is not
denuded in bail jurisdiction. While exercising bail
jurisdiction various legal issues may arise for
consideration in the facts and circumstances of
a case which directly impact fair administration
of justice. The Court is possessed of jurisdiction
to determine such issues as per law while
deciding bail applications. (Para 9)