# Najim Hussain v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 85
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46047 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/najim-hussain-v-state-of-u-p-48249
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306-seeking
for bail-delay in FIR-husband committed
suicide on
account
of
extra
marital
relationship of his wife with other personas per doctor opinion, deceased died on
account of asphyxia as a result of
hanging-husband
committed
suicide
under the score that he was under the
constant threat and quarrelling terms with
his wife-he seems too sensitive and
possessive about his wife, he has many
other avenues and alternatives to get rid
off her instead of taking his own life-
Extra-marital relationship per se, would
not come within the ambit of Section 498A-suspicion in the mind of husband cannot
be
regarded
as
mental
cruelty-Extra
marital
realtionship
alone
is
neither
cruelty nor abetment of suicide in the
absence of proper proof for provocation-
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mental cruelty varies from person to
person, depending upon the intensity and
the degree of endurance-extra-marital
affair may not in all circumstances invite
conviction under Section 306 IPC-bail
granted.

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Najim Hussain Vs. State of U.P.
85

(6) A person shall not be
prosecuted for any offence under this
section except with the previous sanction of
the Commissioner."

18. Section 132 of the Act lists 12
offences
that
are
punishable
with
imprisonment and/or a fine. The terms of
imprisonment and the amount of fine, is
dependent on the amount involved in the
offence, or in some cases, the act
committed by the offender. The provision
further categorises certain offences as
cognizable
and non-bailable,
if
the
amount involved exceeds Rs. 500 lakhs,
as stated in clause-5 of the Section. These
offences relate to person who supply
goods
or
services
without
issuing
invoices,
or
issue
invoices
without
supplying goods or services and thus
wrongfully avail Input Tax Credit, or to
persons who collect tax but fails to pay it
to the Government beyond a period of
three months from the date on which
payment becomes due. All other offences
listed
under
the
Act
have
been
categorized
as
non-cognizable
and
bailable, as per clause-4 of the Section.

19. In the present case, it is a common
ground between the applicants and the
opposite party No. 3 that the offences are
bailable. Even para-28 of the counter
affidavit
to
the
said
effect
stands
unrebutted.

20. Resultantly, the question thus
being answered by holding that granting of
anticipatory bail does not arise for an
offence which is bailable and a direction
for the same can be issued only in respect
of non-bailable and cognizable offences,
the present anticipatory bail application
deserves rejection and, accordingly, it is
rejected.

21. Interim order dated 2.3.2022 is
hereby vacated.
----------
(2022)03ILR A85
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46047 of
2021
&
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44992 of
2021

Najim Hussain ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sri Jai Shanker
Malviya

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Janardan Prasad Tripathi

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306-seeking
for bail-delay in FIR-husband committed
suicide on
account
of
extra
marital
relationship of his wife with other personas per doctor opinion, deceased died on
account of asphyxia as a result of
hanging-husband
committed
suicide
under the score that he was under the
constant threat and quarrelling terms with
his wife-he seems too sensitive and
possessive about his wife, he has many
other avenues and alternatives to get rid
off her instead of taking his own life-
Extra-marital relationship per se, would
not come within the ambit of Section 498A-suspicion in the mind of husband cannot
be
regarded
as
mental
cruelty-Extra
marital
realtionship
alone
is
neither
cruelty nor abetment of suicide in the
absence of proper proof for provocation-
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mental cruelty varies from person to
person, depending upon the intensity and
the degree of endurance-extra-marital
affair may not in all circumstances invite
conviction under Section 306 IPC-bail
granted.

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Pinakin
Mahipatray
Rawal
Vs
St.
of
Guj.(2014) AIR SC 331,(2013) 10 SCC 48

2. K.V. Prakash Babu Vs St. of Karn.(2017)
Cr.L.J.

3. Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chourasia & ors. Vs
St. of Guj. (2015) AIR SC 2670, (2015) 11 SCC
753

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

(1) There are two connected criminal
misc. bail applications moved by the
applicants Najim Hussain and Smt. Areeba
and both are being named accused of case
crime no. 463 of 2021, under Section 306
IPC, P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad and
for the sake of brevity both the bail
applications are being heard and decided by
a common order.

(2) Both the applicants are facing
prosecution in case crime no. 463 of 2021,
under Section 306 IPC and are in jail since
09.09.2021, seeking enlargement on bail in
exercise of power under Section 439
Cr.P.C.

(3) Heard Sir Jai Shanker Malviya,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sir
Janardan Prasad Tripathi, Ms. Sweety
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
complainant and learned AGA for the
State and perused the material brought on
record.

(4) The delayed FIR was registered by
Sri Danish on 30.08.2019 for the incident
said to have been taken place on
20.08.2021,
there
is
not
plausible
justification coming forward to explain this
delay. From the record, it is clear that the
informant himself is not an eye witness to
the incident and whatever the story narrated
by him in the FIR is on the basis of some
hearsay of others. The FIR was registered
against the applicants Najim Hussain and
Areeba
with
the
allegation
that
on
22.08.2021 around 11.30 p.m. in the night,
the wife of the deceased Jakir @ Choota
(informant's
brother)
has
given
an
information to the house of brother-in-law
(Behnoi) of the informant that his younger
brother Jakir @ Choota has sustained
sudden cardiac arrest, on which the
informant rushed to the Jakir's place where
he saw that the dead body of Jakir was
lying on the bed, which was carrying
ligature mark around his neck. It is further
submitted that the applicant-Nazim often
used to visit his brother's place and has
developed an intimate relationship with
Jakir's wife Smt. Areeba. On this account,
Jakir @ Chhota and his wife Smt. Areebaapplicant were often in a quarreling terms
and was a severe cause of mental concern
of his brother-Jakir @ Chhota. It is further
mentioned that the deceased's wife Smt.
Areeba-applicant without divorcing his
husband- Jakir @ Chhota, got married with
applicant- Najim. The informant has got
firm belief that on account of this extra
marital relationship of his wife Smt.
Areeba, Jakir @ Chhota has committed
suicide.

(5) The case was registered under
Section 306 IPC. Provides to the abettor to
commit suicide. Learned counsel for the
applicant has drawn the attention of the
3 All. Najim Hussain Vs. State of U.P.
87
Court to the provisions of Section 107 IPC,
which reads thus:-

"107. Abetment of a thing.--A
person abets the doing of a thing, who--

(Secondly) --Engages with one
or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or

(Thirdly) -- Intentionally aids, by
any act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. Explanation 1.--A person who,
by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure,
a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing. Explanation 2.--
Whoever, either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything
in order to facilitate the commission of
that act, and thereby facilitate the
commission thereof, is said to aid the
doing of that act."

(6) It is further contended by the
learned counsel for the applicant that the
Investigating Officer during investigation
has collected the number of statements of
witnesses and every body has given
sketchy and perfunctory allegation of extra
marital relationship between the applicant-
Najim Hussain and applicant- Smt. Areeba,
who is legally wedded wife of deceased
Jakir @ Chhota. This was the basic root
cause of taking extreme step by the
deceased by hanging himself.

(7) It has been contended by the
learned counsel for the applicant that
Danish, who was present at the time of
inquest on 23.08.2021, did not expressed a
whisper about alleged illicit relationship.
The post mortem report too reveals that
there is mark of singular ligature admeasuring 22 x 3 cm around the neck with
a gap of 5 cm on the back side of the neck
obliquely place on the right side of the
neck. A typical injury of hanging and the
doctor too has opined that deceased died on
account of asphyxia as a result of hanging.

(8) While drawing the attention of the
Court to the number of witnesses, namely,
Danish, informant who is not an eye
witness, Kaleem, Rahees Ahmad, Mohd.
Wajid and Pappu @ Sarif Ahmad, all the
witnesses in unequivocally terms have
stated that since Areeba was nurturing an
illicit relationship with the applicant-Najim
and this was sole root cause of taking the
extreme step by committing suicide. On
this line, there is tangent remark was pasted
that the deceased used to share his feelings
during his life time with the witnesses that
both of them used to curse the deceased
and instigate him to commit suicide.

(9) Learned counsel for the applicant
has relied upon number of judgements of
Hon'ble Apex Court as to whether the extra
marital relation though come within the
realm of ''cruelty' but would not fall within
the four corners of Section 107 IPC.

(10) It has been contended by the
learned counsel that the term extra marital
affair is termed which has not been defined
in the IPC nor it is possible to give steal
jacketed definition of the term as the
situation may changes from case to case.
The marital relationship means a legally
protected marital interest of one spouse to
another, which includes marital obligation
to another like companionship, living under
the same roof, sexual relation and the
exclusive enjoyment between them, to have
children, their upbringing, services in the
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
home, support, affection, love, liking and
so on. Referring to three judgements of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (i)
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs. State of
Gujrat reported in AIR 2014 (SC)331,
(2013)10 SCC 48, in the case of (ii)
K.V.Prakash
Babu
Vs.
State
of
Karnataka reported in 2017, Crl.L.J., in
the case of (iii) Ghusabhai Raisangbhai
Chourasia and others Vs. State of Gujrat
reported in AIR 2015 SC 2670, (2015) 11
SCC 753, judgement of Hon'ble Madhya
Pradesh in the case of Anil Patel Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh decided on
18.02.2020 in Crl. Appeal no. 514 of 2011
and the judgement of Madras High Court in
the case of Manickam Vs. State of
Tamilnadu decided on 29.09.2018 in Crl.
Appeal No. 32 of 2008. Let us examine the
obsrvations made by the Hon'ble Court one
by one.

(11) In the case of Pinakin
Mahipatray Rawal (supra) Hon'ble
Apex Court while dealing with such type
of cases where either of the parties
committed suicide on the basis of
suspicion i.e. counter part has developed
certain amount of intimate relationship
with some third person. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has opined that the deceased
seem to be too possessive for her husband
and always under the emotional stress
towards him that she might lose her
husband. Too much of possessiveness
could also lead to serious emotional
stress, over and above the fact that she
had one abortion and her daughter died
after few days of birth, cumulatively
affects that she might lose all the interest
in her life and committed suicide. The
mere fact that husband has developed
some intimacy with another. During
subsistence of his marital relationship and
way to discharge his marital obligation as
such would not amount to "cruelty" but it
must be of such a nature as is likely to
drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall
within the explanation of Section 498A
IPC.

It was held that the accused has
developed an intimacy with her colleague but
has not ill-treated the deceased either
physically or mentally and the deceased was
living with the accused in the matrimonial
home till the date but she committed suicide.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court has
held that the alleged extra marital relationship
was not such a nature as to drive the wife to
commit suicide or that accused has ever
intended or accord in such a manner, which
under the normal circumstances, would
driving wife to commit suicide.

(12) In paragraph 26 of the judgement
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pinakin
Mahipatray Rawal (supra) observed as
under:-

"Section 26. The action for
committing suicide is also on account of
mental disturbance caused by mental and
physical cruelty. To constitute an offence
under Section 306, the prosecution has to
establish that a person has committed
suicide and the suicide was abetted by the
accused. Prosecution has to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased
committed suicide and the accused abetted
the commission of suicide. But for the
alleged extra-marital relationship, which if
proved, could be illegal and immoral,
nothing has been brought out by the
prosecution to show that the accused had
provoked, incited or induced the wife to
commit suicide."

(13) In the case of Ghusabhai
Raisangbhai
Chourasia
(supra),
the
3 All. Najim Hussain Vs. State of U.P.
89
Hon'ble Court has held which read as
under:-

"23. the accused husband of
deceased had illicit relations with the
appellant, who was divorcee. The deceased
wife was residing separately on terrace of
house
and
committed
suicide
by
consuming poison. The Court said that the
involvement
of
accused
in
illicit
relationship, even if proven, was not
evidence that mental cruelty was of such a
degree that it would drive wife to commit
suicide. In the aforesaid situation, the
explanation of section 498-A of IPC is not
attracted. The Court also observed that :-

"It would be difficult to hold that
the mental cruelty was of such a degree
that it would drive the wife to commit
suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship,
even if proved, would be illegal and
immoral, but it would take a different
character if the prosecution brings some
evidence on record to show that the
accused had conducted in such a manner
to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the
instant case, the accused may have been
involved in an illicit relationship with the
appellant divorcee, but in the absence of
some other acceptable evidence on record
that can establish such high degree of
mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section
498A, which includes cruelty to drive a
woman to commit suicide, would not be
attracted".

The Supreme Court held in Para
20 of the aforesaid case as under:-

"20. Coming to the facts of the
present case, it is seen that the factum of
divorce has not been believed by the
learned trial Judge and the High Court.
But the fact remains is that the husband
and the wife had started living separately
in the same house and the deceased had
told her sister that there was severance of
status and she would be going to her
parental home after the 'Holi' festival.
True it is, there is some evidence about the
illicit relationship and even if the same is
proven, we are of the considered opinion
that cruelty, as envisaged under the first
limb of Section 498A, IPC would not get
attracted."

(14)

Lastly
in
the
case
of
K.V.Prakash Babu (supra) in that case
marriage
between
the
applicant
and
deceased was solemnized on 12.10.1997.
The appellant has got involved with
another woman. It was the case of
prosecution that the deceased felt extremely
hurt and eventually being unable to
withstand the conduct of the husband who
was allegedly involved in an extra-marital
affair, put an end to her life on 20.08.2004.
The Hon'ble Court observed that :-

"16. The concept of mental
cruelty depends upon the milieu and the
strata from which the persons come from
and definitely has an individualistic
perception regard being had to one's
endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to
generalize
but
certainly
it
can
be
appreciated in a set of established facts.
Extra-marital relationship, per se, or as
such would not come within the ambit of
Section 498-A IPC. It would be an illegal
or immoral act, but other ingredients are
to be brought home so that it would
constitute a criminal offence. There is no
denial of the fact that the cruelty need not
be physical but a mental torture or
abnormal behaviour that amounts to
cruelty or harassment in a given case. It
will depend upon the facts of the said case.
To explicate, solely because the husband is
involved in an extra-marital relationship
and there is some suspicion in the mind of
wife, that cannot be regarded as mental
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cruelty which would attract mental cruelty
for satisfying the ingredients of Section
306 IPC."

(15) It has come on record that
various witnesses that the people talked in
the locality with regard to the involvement
of the applicant with another lady. It needs
to be noted that the deceased being the
husband felt betrayed and even to digest the
humiliation and have committed suicide.

The
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
summarizing the impact of extra-marital
relationship and its probable consequences
that factual score that has the potentiality to
shock a sensitive mind and a sincere heart,
for the materials brought on record show
how "suspicion" can corrode the rational
perception of value of life and cloud the
thought of a wife to such an extent, that
would persuade her to commit suicide
which entail more death, i.e. of the alleged
paramour, and she could not cope up with
social humiliation extinguish.

In the instant case too even
assumed for the sake of argument, the
prosecution story to be true on the face
value, the husband has committed suicide
under the score that he was under constant
threat and quarrelling terms with his wife
that she has developed an intimate
relationship with the applicant-Najim. The
deceased seems to be too sensitive and
possessive about his wife, he has many
other avenues and alternatives to get rid off
her instead of taking is own life by
hanging.

(16) Sir Janardan Prasad Tripathi, and
Ms. Sweety Srivastava, learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed
the bail application by making mentioned that
the wife of a person means dignity and
honour and if someone has tried to p lay with
other or dilute interse relation of husband and
wife is an unacceptable proposition and
frustrated husband if have committed suicide,
the accused persons are liable to be punished
under Section 306 IPC.

(17) To the mind of the Court, the
allegation made therein of developing extramarital relationship and this is the reason
behind committing suicide. In the light of the
aforesaid judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court,
the applicants deserve to be bailed out.

(18) After hearing rival submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, the charge
sheet has been submitted by the police under
Section 306 IPC and nothing remains to be
investigated and taking the guidelines of the
aforesaid judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court
with regard to the extra-marital relationship
and its probable consequences in which the
Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly and explicitly
in its judgement exonerated the accused from
the charges under Section 306 IPC and
admitted on bail.

(19) Keeping in view the nature of the
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused
and submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, I am of the view that the applicant has
made out a case for bail.

(20) Let the applicants- Najim
Hussain & Smt.Areeba, be released on
bail in the aforesaid case crime number on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned with the following
conditions which are being imposed in the
interest of justice:-

(i)
THE
APPLICANT/APPLICANTS
SHALL
FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE
EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL
3 All. Najim Hussain Vs. State of U.P.
91
NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON
THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE
WHEN
THE
WITNESSES
IS/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/APPLICANTS
SHALL
REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE
TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE
FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR
THROUGH
HIS/HER/THEIR
COUNSEL.
IN
CASE
OF
HER
ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT
CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY
PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR
UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii)
IN
CASE,
THE
APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES
THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING
TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE
HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION
UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE
ISSUED
AND
IF
APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO
APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON
THE
DATE
FIXED
IN
SUCH
PROCLAMATION,
THEN,
THE
TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE
PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST
HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A
IPC.

(iv)
THE
APPLICANT/APPLICANTS
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. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE
TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE
APPLICANT/APPLICANTS
IS/ARE
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
HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY
MAKE
ALL
POSSIBLE
EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO
CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE
RELEASE
OF
THE
APPLICANT/APPLICANTS.

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

(22) Since the bail application has
been
decided
under
extra-ordinary
circumstances, thus in the interest of justice
following additional conditions are being
imposed
just
to
facilitate
the
applicant/applicants to be released on bail
forthwith. Needless to mention that these
additional conditions are imposed to cope
with emergent condition-:

1. The applicant/applicants shall
be enlarged on bail on execution of
personal bond without sureties till normal
functioning of the courts is/are restored.
The accused will furnish sureties to the
satisfaction of the court below within a
month after normal functioning of the
courts are restored.

2. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The computer generated copy
of such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

4.
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2022)03ILR A92
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53947 of
2021

Atul Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ishan Deo Giri, Sri Sarvesh Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 363, 366, 376 &
POCSO Act,2012-Section 3⁄4 - Scheduled
Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities)
Act,
1989-Sections
3(2)v,
3(2)va-seeking for bail-victim was 14 1⁄2
years old on the date of incident-victim
and the applicant got married and
remained in company and she gave birth
to a baby-No doubt consent of minor girl
has got no value in the eyes of law but in
the present case, where the girl has given
birth to a baby from the applicant and in
her statemnt u/s 164 CrPC, she declined
to go with her parents, she is living at
Balgrih in most inhuman condition with
her infant baby, this by itself is pathetic
and would amount to adding to her
miseries-it
is
extremely
harsh
and
inhuman
to
devoid
that
baby
from
parental
love
and
affection-In
this
extraordinary condition, keeping in view
of the offence,evidence and complicity of
the accused, bail is granted to the
accused/applicant.(Para 1 to 21)

B. There are certain grey areas, where the
severity of the sentences porvided under
the Act, rightly so be diluted keeping in
view of the facts of each case. if these
rigors of the enactment is pasted hastily
or
irresponsiblity,
it
could
lead
to
irreparable damage to the reputation and
future of young whose action would have
been only innocuous and may lead to
spoiling the future life of that innocent
lovers or couple who out of sheer
innocence have initially developed and
thereafter established that relationship,
which if seen through the bioscope of
these penal provisions of the Act, 2012,
would fall within the realm of offence.
(Para 12)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ishan Deo Giri, learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.
and perused the record of the case.

2. Applicant Atul Mishra is facing
prosecution in Case Crime No.0456 of
2019, u/s 363, 366, 376 I.P.C.; Section 3⁄4 of
POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3(2)v,
3(2)va of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
Police Station-Khaga, District-Fatehpur. He
is behind the bars in connection with
aforesaid offence since 4.10.2021 and
seeking bail during trial, whereas the
victim/prosecutrix
is
languishing
at
Government Child Welfare Home (Girls),
Khuldabad, Prayagraj along with her infant
baby in her lap.