# Khargesh @ Golu (In Jail) v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 762
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4923 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khargesh-golu-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53441
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A, 506 & 392 -
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5 (G)/6 -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
 Section 3 (2) (5) A - Issue before High
Court is that informant 'X' challenged
order dated 11.08.2023, whereby bail
was
granted
to
accused/applicants
before Apex Court, claiming that 'X' was
not given hearing and not made party to
bail proceedings - Apex Court set aside
said order, observed that mandatory
requirements under both relevant Acts
were not fulfilled - Present second bail
applications
filed seeking
bail
for
accused-applicants - Apart from merits,
it was argued that informant 'X' was
personally served notice. She did not
appear through counsel in one bail
matter, while her counsel appeared in
connected bail application - Statutory
provisions as in Section 439(1A), Cr.P.C.
and Section 15A(3), SC/ST Act has been
complied by High Court, but victim has
manipulated,
mis-represented,
and
concealed material facts, documents
before Apex Court and obtained order,
which is gross misuse of process of
Court and because of conduct of 'X' ,
accused/applicants languishing in jail.
(Para 21, 22, 26)

Applications allowed. (E-13)
5 All. Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
763
List of Cases cited:

## Text

762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act
is
a
provision
specifically
for
imposition of penalty to be adjudicated by
the proper officer while the provisions from
Sections 132 to 138 deal with prosecution
to be done by the criminal courts.
Moreover, as discussed above, conclusion
of proceedings on the main person under
Section 74 of the CGST Act shall not ipso
facto abate the proceedings under Section
122 of the CGST Act proposed to be
imposed on the main person. The scheme
of the CGST Act read with CGST Rules
lead one to the inescapable conclusion that
the arguments raised by the petitioner,
though innovative and thought provoking,
are fallacious as the interpretation given by
the petitioner would lead to obfuscation of
the very purpose and objective of the
CGST Act. In light of the same, the
contentions of the petitioner cannot be
countenanced
and,
are
accordingly,
rejected.

55. The writ petition is dismissed. The
respondent authorities are directed to
continue with the proceedings under
Section 122 of the CGST Act in line with
the show cause notice issued.

56. I would like to acknowledge the
consummate arguments made by counsel
appearing on behalf of both the parties and
thank the juniors appearing in the matter
for the diligent spadework in preparation of
the notes of arguments submitted by both
sides. I would also go amiss if I did not
appreciate my Research Associates Ms.
Saumya Patel and Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava
for their in depth research and assistance
provided to me.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 762
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4923 of 2025

Khargesh @ Golu ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Prashant Yadav, Sri Rajeev Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A, 506 & 392 -
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5 (G)/6 -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
 Section 3 (2) (5) A - Issue before High
Court is that informant 'X' challenged
order dated 11.08.2023, whereby bail
was
granted
to
accused/applicants
before Apex Court, claiming that 'X' was
not given hearing and not made party to
bail proceedings - Apex Court set aside
said order, observed that mandatory
requirements under both relevant Acts
were not fulfilled - Present second bail
applications
filed seeking
bail
for
accused-applicants - Apart from merits,
it was argued that informant 'X' was
personally served notice. She did not
appear through counsel in one bail
matter, while her counsel appeared in
connected bail application - Statutory
provisions as in Section 439(1A), Cr.P.C.
and Section 15A(3), SC/ST Act has been
complied by High Court, but victim has
manipulated,
mis-represented,
and
concealed material facts, documents
before Apex Court and obtained order,
which is gross misuse of process of
Court and because of conduct of 'X' ,
accused/applicants languishing in jail.
(Para 21, 22, 26)

Applications allowed. (E-13)
5 All. Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
763
List of Cases cited:

1. Arunima Baruah Vs U.O.I. (2007)6 SCC 120

2. Prestige Lights Limited Vs S.B.I. (2007) 8 SCC
449

3. Udyami Evan Khadi Gramodyog Welfare
Sanstha & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2008)1 SCC
560

4. K.D Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. &
ors., (2008)12 SCC481

5. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P.& ors., (2010)2 SCC 114
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1. The instant bail applications are
second bail applications moved before this
Court for enlarging the applicant namely,
Khargesh alias Golu on bail in Special
Criminal Case No. 214 of 2021 arising out
of Case Crime No. 599 of 2021 under
Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A, 506, 392
I.P.C., Section 5 (G)/6 of POCSO Act and
Section 3 (2) (5) A of SC/ST Act and to
release
the
accused-applicant
namely,
Karan on bail in Case Crime No. 599 of
2021 under Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A,
506, 392 , 411 I.P.C. and Section 5 (G)/6 of
POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (5) A of
SC/ST Act Police Station Khora, District
Ghaziabad.

2. Vide order dated 04.04.2025, this
Court had issued notice to the first
informant of the case crime in the both the
bail applications.

3. Office report dated 01.05.2025
shows that notice issued to the first
informant has been served personally.
Pursuant to which name of Sri Susheel
Kumar, learned counsel has been shown in
the cause list, who did not appear before
this Court even in the revised call.

4. Heard Sri Prashant Yadav, learned
counsel for the applicant- Khargesh alias
Golu in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 4923 of 2025 and Sri Narendra Kumar
Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant-
Karan in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 6793 of 2025, Sri Chandan Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the material on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
contend that this Court vide order dated
11.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. First
Bail
Application
No.44142
of
2021
(Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. and
others) as well as in Criminal Misc. First
Bail Application No. 43380 of 2021 (Karan
Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been
pleased to grant bail to the accusedapplicants. He further submits that against
the aforesaid order of this Court, the
informant-'X' approached the Supreme
Court and filed Criminal Appeal No. 5385
of 2024 ('X' Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
and another) arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl) No. 5027 of 2024 and
Criminal Appeal No. 5386 of 2024 ('X' Vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh and other)
arising out of Special Leave Petition No.
5305 of 2024 respectively. The Hon'ble
Apex Court heard both the appeals together
and allowed the same vide order dated
13.12.2024, setting aside the orders passed
by
this
Court
and
the
concerned
respondents (in the appeal) i.e. the present
applicants were directed to surrender before
the trial Court on or before 30.12.2024.
Pursuant to which the applicants appeared
before the trial Court, who are languishing
in jail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that before the Hon'ble Apex
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court, it was argued by the counsel for the
'X' that whether the appellant ('X') should
have been given an opportunity of hearing
and should have been made party in the
bail proceedings filed by the concerned
respondents before the High Court. Further
it was argued that the 'X' has not been
impleaded as party-respondent in the bail
proceedings before this Court and the
concerned
Pubic
Prosecutor
had not
informed the victim ('X') about the said
proceedings.
Learned
counsel
further
argued that while allowing the appeal,
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that statutory
provisions contained in Section 439 (1A) of
Cr.P.C. and Section 15 A(3) of the SC/ST
Act have been violated and the High Court
also, in the impugned order, has not
considered the mandatory requirement of
both the Acts and granted bail to the
concerned respondents (applicants in the
present case) in a very casual and cursory
manner and proceeded to set aside the
impugned orders. Learned counsel further
argued that the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 06.12.2021 had
issued notice to the complainant/informant
of the case in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 44142 of 2021, whereas
perusal of the order dated 15.11.2021
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 43380 of 2021 (Karan Vs. State of U.P.
and others) shows that Sri Deepak Kumar
Verma and Sri Siya Ram Verma, learned
counsel have put in appearance on behalf of
the informant 'X' and on their request, the
matter was directed to be listed on
02.12.2021 as fresh. It is thus contended
that the informant ('X') has concealed the
material facts before Hon'ble Apex Court
and
had
obtained
the
order
dated
13.12.2024. It is thus contended that since
the informant was issued notice and on her
behalf
learned
counsel
had
put
in
appearance therefore it cannot be said that
the informant was not heard while passing
the order dated 11.08.2023, therefore,
considering the facts and circumstances,
the accused applicants may be enlarged on
bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. though has
opposed the bail application moved on
behalf of applicants but could not dispute
the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the applicants.

8. Perusal of the record shows that
there were as many as four accused
persons, who had sought bail by way of
filing separate bail applications on their
behalf before this Court arising out of same
case crime. The details of which are as
under:-

(I)
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 44142 of 2021 (Khargesh
@ Golu Vs. State of U.P.).

(II)
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 43380 of 2021 (Karan Vs.
State of U.P).

(III)
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 44390 of 2021 (Sumit @
Lefty Vs. State of U.P. and another).

(IV)
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 43514 of 2021 (Suraj Vs.
State of U.P.).

9.

In
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application
No.
44142
of
2021
(Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. ),
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 06.12.2021 had been pleased
to issue notice to the complainant
returnable at an early date fixing the
matter for 20.12.2021 as fresh. The order
06.12.2021 is quoted below:-.

"Issue notice to the complainant
returnable at an early date.
5 All. Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
765

Steps be taken within one week.

List on 20.12.2021 as fresh."

10. Therefore, it is crystal clear that
the first informant i.e.'X' of the case was
issued notice in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 44142 of 2021 (Khargesh
@ Golu Vs. State of U.P. and others.)

11. Record also shows that in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43380
of 2021 (Karan Vs. State of U.P.) notice
was also issued to the informant and on
15.11.2021 the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, on the request of learned counsel for
the informant had fixed the matter as fresh
for 02.12.2021. The order dated 02.11.2021
is quoted below:-

"Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned
counsel
for
the
informant and learned AGA for the State
are present.

As requested by learned counsel for
the informant, list on 02.12.2021, as fresh."

12.

In
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 44390 of 2021 (Sumit @
Lefty Vs. State of U.P. and another), the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 14.12.2021 had issued notice to the
'X'-informant. The order dated 14.12.2021
is quoted below:-

"Issue notice to the informant
through
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad returnable at an early date.

Put up this case on 21.1.2022 as
fresh. Meanwhile, learned A.G.A. may also
file counter affidavit."

13. Again, on 21.01.2022, an order
was passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 44390 of 2021 (Sumit @
Lefty Vs. State of U.P. and another),
whereby the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had been pleased to pass the
following order:-

"Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned
AGA on the basis of instructions submits
that
the
police
authorities
have
substantially complied with the directions
issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs
State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021
(6) ADJ 511. Notice of the bail application
has been served upon the victim. However,
Form A and Form B have not been sent by
the police authority. The C.W.C. district
Ghaziabad,
has
failed
to
sent
any
instructions.
The
C.W.C.
district
Ghaziabad, has not complied with the
directions issued by this Court in Junaid
(supra) and also not implemented the
protective provisions of POCSO Act, 2012
read with POCSO Rules, 2020.

Learned AGA prays for and is
granted four weeks time to file counter
affidavit.

Put up this case on 28.02.2022 in
the list of fresh cases."

14. So far as Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 43514 of 2021, (Suraj vs
State of U.P.) is concerned, in that case too,
notice was issued to the first informant of
the case in terms of the order dated
28.10.2021, which is quoted below:-

"Heard.

Let, a notice be issued to
informant
through
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate concerned.

List, as fresh, on 23.11.2021."

15. Vide order dated 11.04.2022
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 44390 of 2021 (Sumit @ Lefty Vs.
State of U.P. and another), the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court had been pleased to
connect
all
the
aforesaid
four
bail
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applications i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 43380 of 2021 (Karan Vs.
State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 43514 of 2021 (Suraj Vs.
State of U.P), Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 44142 of 2021 (Khargesh
@ Golu Vs. State of U.P.) with Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 44390 of 2021
(Sumit @ Lefty Vs. State of U.P. and
another). The order dated 11.04.2022 is
quoted below:-

"Heard
Mr.
Faiz
Ahmad,
Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Imran
Ullah, learned counsel for applicant and
learned A.G.A. for State.

At the very outset, learned A.G.A.
submits that following bail applications
filed by co-accused are already pending
before this Court.

(i)
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 43380 of 2021, (KARAN vs
State of U.P)

(ii)
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 43514 of 2021, (SURAJ vs
State of U.P.)

(iii)
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application
No.
44142
of
2021,
(KHARGESH @ GOLU vs State of U.P.)

In
view
of
above,
connect
aforementioned
criminal
misc.
bail
applications along with this application for
bail.

Matter shall reappear as fresh on
25.4.2022 along with connected matters."

16. This Court has summoned the
record of Criminal Misc. First Bail
Application No.44142 of 2021 (Khargesh
@ Golu Vs. State of U.P. and others). The
notice issued to the informant had been
served personally as is evident from the
report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ghaziabad dated 17.12.2021..

17. So far as Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 43380 of 2021 (Karan Vs.
State of U.P.) is concerned, Sri Deepak
Kumar Verma and Sri Siya Ram Verma,
learned counsel have put in appearance on
behalf of the informant, after service of
notice upon the informant.

18.

In
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.44390 of 2021 (Sumit @
Lefty Vs. State of U.P.) it has been
observed in the order dated 21.01.2022 that
notice of the bail application has been
served upon the victim.

19. With regard to Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 43514 of 2021 (Suraj
Vs. State of U.P), notice was also issued to
the first informant of the case vide order
dated 28.10.2021.

20. All the four bail applications were
listed on 11.08.2023. Notice was served
upon the informant in Criminal Misc. First
Bail
Application
No.44142
of
2021
(Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. and
others), Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 43380 of 2021 (Karan Vs. State of
U.P.) Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.44390 of 2021 (Sumit @ Lefty Vs.
State of U.P.) as has been observed by this
Court vide order dated 21.01.2022 that
notice of the bail application has been
served upon the victim.

21. The subject matter before this
Court is that the informant 'X' had
approached Hon'ble Apex Court against
the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44142
of 2021 (Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of
U.P. and others), Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 43380 of 2021 (Karan Vs.
State of U.P.) whereby the accusedapplicants were enlarged on bail, on the
5 All. Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
767
ground that the 'X' was not afforded an
opportunity of hearing and should have
been made party in the bail proceedings
filed by the applicants. The Hon'ble Apex
Court while setting aside the order dated
11.08.2023 had observed that mandatory
requirement of both the Acts has not been
fulfilled.

22. Now the present/second bail
applications have been moved before this
Court for enlarging the accused-applicant
Khargesh @ Golu and Karan on bail. Merit
issues apart, learned counsel also had taken
ground that 'X' was served with the notice
personally and she did not appear through
counsel in the bail application of Khargesh
@ Golu Vs. State of U.P. but in the
connected bail of Karan Vs. State of U.P.
her counsel had put in appearance on her
behalf.

23. As already observed in the
preceding paragraph, notice issued to the
'X' in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
44142 of 2021 (Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State
of U.P. and others), was served personally
as is evident from the perusal of report
dated 17.12.2021 sent by the concerned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereas in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43380
of 2021 (Karan Vs. State of U.P.) pursuant
to the service of notice upon the informant,
Sri Deepak Kumar Verma and Sri Siya
Ram Verma, learned counsel have put in
appearance on behalf of the informant. 'X'
appeared through her counsel Sri Deepak
Kumar Verma and Sri Siya Ram Verma in
only one case i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 43380 of 2021 (Karan Vs.
State of U.P.) and in another case, she did
not care to put in appearance, inspite of
service of notice long back.

24. When the case was taken up on
11.08.2023 in the revised reading of the list,
learned counsel for the informant did not
appear and all the four accused including the
applicants were enlarged on bail, vide order
dated 11.08.2023. However, the victim after
concealing the material fact of having been
received notice of the bail applications, took a
ground before the Hon'ble Apex Court that
she was not granted opportunity of hearing
and has obtained an order from the Hon'ble
Apex Court under misrepresentation.

25. Besides the above fact, it is not the
case of the victim that she did not have
knowledge of all the bail applications filed on
behalf of the accused in Case Crime No. 599
of 2021, Police Station Khora, District
Ghaziabad as all the four bail applications
were clubbed and heard together. It is
noteworthy that if the accused persons (in
same case crime) have filed separate bail
application and if all the bail applications are
connected and heard together on the same
day, then in such case if the informant's
counsel put in appearance in a single case it is
presumed that he is appearing in all the cases
on behalf of the informant, irrespective of the
fact as to whether he has any instruction or
not.

26. Thus, from the above discussion, it
is apparent that statutory provisions as
contained in Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C. and
Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act has not
only been complied in letter and spirit by this
Court but also the victim has manipulated,
mis-represented, and concealed the material
fact before Hon'ble Apex Court and had
obtained the order dated 13.12.2024,which is
nothing but gross misuse of the process of the
Court and because of the conduct of the 'X'
the accused applicants are languishing in jail
since 02.01.2025.
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. Today when the instant second
bail application of the accused-appellants
have been taken up, Sri Susheel Kumar,
learned counsel for the informant has not
appeared even in the revised reading of the
list, though in both the bail applications, his
name has been shown in the cause list.

28. It is settled law that one should
approach the Court with clean heart and
clean mind to get a relief and one who does
not come with clean heart and clean mind,
dis-entitles himself from getting any relief
from the Court. From what has been
mentioned above, it is clear that the 'X' had
approached Apex Court with oblique
motives and has not presented the correct
facts just to gain undue advantage. Such
type
of
practice
should
always
be
discouraged and is highly deprecated. They
belong to the category of persons who not
only attempt, but succeed in polluting the
course of justice.

29. In Arunima Baruah Vs. Union
of India (2007)6 SCC 120, Supreme Court
held that it is trite law that to enable the
Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction suppression must of material
fact. Material fact would mean material for
the purpose of determination of the lis. It
was further held that a person invoking the
discretionary jurisdiction of the court
cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair
of dirty hands.

30. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs.
State Bank of India (2007)8 SCC 449,
Apex Court held as under:

"...... If the applicant does not
disclose full facts or suppresses relevant
materials or is otherwise guilty of
misleading the Court, the Court may
dismiss the action without adjudicating
the matter. The rule has been evolved in
larger
public
interest
to
deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the
process of Court by deceiving it. ....."

31. In Udyami Evan Khadi
Gramodyog
Welfare
Sanstha
and
another Vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2008)1 SCC 560, it has been observed
as below:

"... Any person approaching a
superior court must come with a pair of
clean hands. It neither should suppress
any material fact, but also should not take
recourse to the legal proceedings over
and over again which amounts to abuse of
the process of law.

For the reasons aforementioned,
there is no merit in this appeal which is
dismissed
accordingly
with
costs.
Counsel's fee quantified at Rs. 50,000/-"

32. In K.D Sharma Vs. Steel
Authority of India Limited and others,
(2008)12 SCC481, Supreme Court held
that no litigant can play "hide and seek"
with the courts or adopt "pick and
choose". To hold a writ of the court one
should come with candid facts and clean
breast. Suppression or concealment of
material facts is forbidden to a litigant or
even as a technique of advocacy. In such
cases the Court is duty bound to
discharge rule nisi and such applicant is
required to be dealt with for contempt of
Court for abusing the process of the
court.

Supreme Court in Dalip Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2010)2 SCC 114 came down heavily on
unscrupulous litigants by holding that it is
now well established that a litigant who
attempts to pollute the stream of justice or
5 All. Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
769
who touches the pure fountain of justice
with tainted hands, is not entitled to any
relief, interim or final.

33. Having considered the factual
aspect of the case and the dictum of the
Supreme Court, I am of the considered
view that the informant X" has misused the
process of law by suppressing the material
facts and documents and misled the Court.
Honesty, fairness, purity of mind should be
of the highest order to approach the court,
failing which the litigant should be shown
the exit door at the earliest point of time.

34. In view of the above discussion, it
is apparent that the order of the Hon'ble
Apex Court dated 13.12.2024 has been
obtained
under
concealment
and
misrepresentation.
Accordingly,
the
applicants are found entitled to bail.

35. Let applicant Khargesh alias
Golu on bail in Special Criminal Case No. 214
of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 599 of
2021 under Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A, 506,
392 I.P.C., Section 5 (G)/6 of POCSO Act and
Section 3 (2) (5) A of SC/ST Act and accusedapplicant Karan on bail in Case Crime No. 599
of 2021 under Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A,
506, 392 , 411 I.P.C. and Section 5 (G)/6 of
POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (5) A of SC/ST
Act Police Station Khora, District Ghaziabad,
be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two local sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to the following conditions:-

i) The applicants shall not tamper
with the prosecution evidence.

ii) The applicants shall not
threaten
or
harass
the
prosecution
witnesses.

iii) The applicants shall appear on
the date fixed by the trial court.

iv) The applicants shall not
commit an offence similar to the offence of
which the applicants are accused, or
suspected of the commission.

v) The applicants shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
such person from disclosing facts to the
Court or to any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.

36. In case of breach of any of the
above condition, the trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in
accordance with law.

37. The bail applications are allowed.

38. Before parting with the matter, the
Court takes serious note of the conduct
offered by the informant 'X' in not only
misusing the process of the Court but also
has not hesitated to even mislead or
misrepresent the material facts even to the
Apex Court of the country only to gain
undue advantage and order of her choice.
For the said conduct offered, the informant
is saddled with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be
deposited by her before the High Court
Legal Service Committee within two
months from the date of this order. Failing
that,
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad is directed to recover the
amount of costs from the first informant as
arrears of land revenue.

39. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ghaziabad is directed to submit his
compliance report at the earliest.

40. A copy of this order be sent to the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad for
compliance and communication to the first
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant, through Registrar Compliance
of this Court.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 770
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12043 of
2024

Arjun @ Golu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Gyan Singh, Awadhesh Kumar Pal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Durgesh Mishra, Saumya Singh

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860Sections
363,
366,
376(3)-Criminal
Procedure Code,1973-Section 439 -The
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act-2012 - Sections 5J(2), 5-L &
6 -Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection of
children)
Act,2015-Section
3(iv)-The
applicant had eloped with a 13 year old
girl-The victim stated in her statements
u/s 161,164 and during her medical
examination that she had gone with the
applicant voluntarily, had married him,
and had consensual physical relations
resulting in pregnancy-No signs of force or
injury were found-The applicant had
sought declaration of juvenility supported
by school records but the application was
not decided by the trial court, and the
applicant continued to remain in regular
jail-The court expressed serious concern
over this lapse, failure of the trial court to
recognize and act on the applicant's
juvenile status-The court granted bail,
directed the trial court to expeditiously
decide the juvenile status application-
(Para 1 to 25)
The application is allowed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Sri Durgesh Mishra, the learned
counsel for the informant has sent a slip
seeking adjournment of the case on the
ground of his illness.

2. The cause list shows the name of
Ms. Saumya Singh as learned counsel for
the informant and neither she is present to
assist the Court nor any request has been
made on her behalf for adjournment of the
case. Complainant or victim of the case
have a right to oppose the bail application
but they do not have a right to stall hearing
of the bail application more particularly,
when the State counsel is present to oppose
the bail application and more particularly
when the applicant is a juvenile, therefore,
request for adjournment of the bail
application is turned down.

3. Heard Dr. Gyan Singh, the learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra
Srivastava, the learned AGA for the State
and perused the records.

4. The instant application has been filed
seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 52 of2024, under Sections
363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and 5J(2), 5-L, 6 of
the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station
Aasupur Deosara, District Pratapgarh.

5. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on
06.03.2024 against the applicant, his Phupha
and Bua, stating that the applicant had enticed
away the informant's daughter aged 13 years
in the night of 04/05 March, 2024.

6. In the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she