# Pradeep Soni v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1818
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17325 of 2025
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-soni-v-state-of-u-p-53359
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 376, 354 & 506 - Bail -
Allegation of rape and molestation by
father and guardian on daughter and
niece - Delay of one year in lodging FIR -
Victims' inconsistent St.ments - Absence
of medical or forensic corroboration -
Prior disputes between families and crosslitigations
-
Alleged
misuse
of
guardianship - Criminal history explained
-
Held,
where
prosecution
evidence
suffers from contradictions, unexplained
delay, and absence of corroboration, bail
cannot
be
denied
merely
on
moral
considerations - Bail granted. (Paras 14,
52, 54, 57 and 58)

HELD:
The allegations if found true are of extreme
mental depravity and must be dealt with an iron
hand. However, branding the applicant as a
'paedophile' in the present matter is premature
and legally untenable, particularly in the
absence of any prior conduct or antecedent
allegations supporting such a characterization in
the FIR. (Para 54)

In the present case, the two victims have
repeatedly altered their St.ments, exhibiting
inconsistency akin to a pendulum. It is also
pertinent to note that the First Information
Reports (FIRs) were lodged by the applicant
concerning the two victims only at a time when
they were minors. The said FIRs were filed
against the victims' alleged lovers and their
family members. Additionally, the present FIR
has been lodged after a considerable delay of
approximately one year. Furthermore, there is
an absence of forensic evidence to substantiate
the allegations. There is no recovery of any
video either. (Para 57)
5 All. Pradeep Soni Vs. State of U.P.
1819
Considering
these
facts,
the
wavering
testimonies of the witnesses, the delayed
lodging of the FIR, the lack of forensic
corroboration, and the nature of the earlier
FIRs, coupled by the fact that the criminal
antecedents have been explained, taking into
consideration the settled dictum that 'bail is rule
and jail an exception' this Court finds it
appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. (Para
58)

Bail Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

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

## Text

1818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
existence of the company is not desirable
for the commercial world. No such material
exists to form a view that the company if
not wound up would be a threat to the
commercial world and/or can lead to
further defrauding of creditors, more so,
when
the
respondent/company
has
categorically undertaken to settle the dues
of the Provident Fund, which according to
Shri N.K. Seth, shall be cleared within a
period of three weeks of the decision of the
present case alongwith any other due
payable to any other creditor.

58. I have already held that the winding
up petition under Section 433(c) of the Act
cannot be considered solely because no
prayer to that effect has been made.

59. Thus, for all the reasons recorded
above, present winding up petition deserves
to be dismissed and is dismissed with the
direction that the respondent/company:

(1) shall pay an amount of
Rs.64.30 Lakh alongwith interest at the rate
of 11% per annum from the date when the
amounts
were
paid
till
actual
payment/realization within two months;

(2) shall clear the Provident Fund
dues within a period of four weeks from
today;

(3) shall clear the outstanding
dues of any other creditor.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1818
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17325 of
2025

Pradeep Soni ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Amit Daga, Sri Vikas Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 376, 354 & 506 - Bail -
Allegation of rape and molestation by
father and guardian on daughter and
niece - Delay of one year in lodging FIR -
Victims' inconsistent St.ments - Absence
of medical or forensic corroboration -
Prior disputes between families and crosslitigations
-
Alleged
misuse
of
guardianship - Criminal history explained
-
Held,
where
prosecution
evidence
suffers from contradictions, unexplained
delay, and absence of corroboration, bail
cannot
be
denied
merely
on
moral
considerations - Bail granted. (Paras 14,
52, 54, 57 and 58)

HELD:
The allegations if found true are of extreme
mental depravity and must be dealt with an iron
hand. However, branding the applicant as a
'paedophile' in the present matter is premature
and legally untenable, particularly in the
absence of any prior conduct or antecedent
allegations supporting such a characterization in
the FIR. (Para 54)

In the present case, the two victims have
repeatedly altered their St.ments, exhibiting
inconsistency akin to a pendulum. It is also
pertinent to note that the First Information
Reports (FIRs) were lodged by the applicant
concerning the two victims only at a time when
they were minors. The said FIRs were filed
against the victims' alleged lovers and their
family members. Additionally, the present FIR
has been lodged after a considerable delay of
approximately one year. Furthermore, there is
an absence of forensic evidence to substantiate
the allegations. There is no recovery of any
video either. (Para 57)
5 All. Pradeep Soni Vs. State of U.P.
1819
Considering
these
facts,
the
wavering
testimonies of the witnesses, the delayed
lodging of the FIR, the lack of forensic
corroboration, and the nature of the earlier
FIRs, coupled by the fact that the criminal
antecedents have been explained, taking into
consideration the settled dictum that 'bail is rule
and jail an exception' this Court finds it
appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. (Para
58)

Bail Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

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

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

 [1] Heard Sri Amit Daga and Sri
Vikas Tiwari, learned counsels for the
applicant, Sri Achyut Ji and Sri Ranjeet
Singh, learned counsels for the informant
as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned
A.G.A. and perused the records.

[2] Applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No. 387 of 2024, under Sections
376, 354, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Kotwali,
District
Jhansi,
during
the
pendency of trial.

 PROSECUTION STORY:

[3] A common FIR was instituted
by the two victims on 06.12.2024 with the
allegations that the victims V1 (niece of the
applicant) and V2 (his daughter) lived with
the applicant, a practicing advocate at
Jhansi. He tried to have physical relations
with the victims several times. About a
year ago when they were sleeping at home,
the applicant told V1 at 2 o'clock in the
night that if she does not have relations
with him, she shall be thrown out of the
house. V1 is an orphan, as such she got
scared of his threats. Taking advantage of
her
situation,
the
applicant
forcibly
established physical relations with V1
twice. When the victim V1 told this to the
other accused persons namely Ankit Soni,
Prashant Soni and Anju Soni, they instead
pressurized her and said that if she told it to
anyone, they shall kill her. The victim V1
got scared, as such. When the applicant told
this to V2, she said that once she was
sleeping at night and the applicant (her
father) pressed her chest and put his finger
inside her salwar and molested her by
inserting her sensitive parts with his
fingers. When the V2 screamed, the
applicant apologized and said that she
should not tell it to anyone, else he shall
commit suicide. Scared V2 did not reveal
the matter to anyone. The applicant
repeated the said act taking the advantage
of her silence and repeated the said obscene
acts all the time. Upset V1 who is major
ran away from home, on her own. The
applicant has misused his clout and got
instituted about 10 cases against several
persons and extorted about Rs. 70 lakhs
from the arrayed accused therein. He kept
on earning money by using the victims, this
way. The details of the FIRs are as follows:

 (i)
FIR
No.
32/2018
u/ss
354A/506 IPC & 7/8 POCSO Act against
Suresh on 19.01.2018.

 (ii)
FIR
No.
41/2022
u/ss
342/354/3547/506 IPC & 7/8 POCSO Act
against Vishal on 22.01.2022.

 (iii) FIR No. 390/2022 u/ss
354/342/504/506 IPC against Abhishek,
Smt. Heera Devi and Jeetam Prajapati on
08.09.2022.

 (iv)
In
the
same
sequence,
Prashant Soni, son of applicant, got
1820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instituted an FIR No. 4454/2020 u/ss
354/342/504/506 IPC against Gaurav on
20.09.2022, through his wife Akanksha
Soni.

 (v) V1 instituted an FIR No.
206/2023 u/s 354 (a)/323/504/506 IPC and
7/8 POCSO Act against applicant.

[4] The applicant is exploiting the
victims and other persons by forming a
gang. Applicant and his gang members are
likely to commit a serious incident any
time. V1 had moved an application before
the High Court, it was ordered that CJM
shall record her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C
after she moved an application at police
station. V1 appeared in Police Station
Kotwali Jhansi and gave an application
there, but the police did not register any
FIR due to the fear of applicant. Hence the
FIR was instituted on joint application of
V1 and V2.

 INVESTIGATION :

[5] The investigation revealed that
as per High School certificate the date of
birth of V1 was 02.04.2006 and that of V2
was 24.09.2005.

[6] The victims reiterated the
allegations made in FIR in their statements
recorded u/s 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. and
stated that V1 had solemnized marriage
with one Vishal Prajapati. The applicant
had tried to marry his daughter V2 to his
tenant Nitin Saxena, who in turn had tried
to outrage her modesty, when she had come
to the Court for getting her statement
recorded. As such the I.O. added section
354 I.P.C. to the case.

 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF
OF APPLICANT :
[7] The statements of independent
witnesses
namely
Mahendra
Kumar,
Chandan Agrawal, Shabir Mohd. Mansuri,
Smt. Kushma Devi, Tanishk Soni, Rajol
Kumar and Praveen Bano, recorded under
Section 180 B.N.S.S. by the investigating
officer indicated that that a neighbour
Vishal Prajapati had enticed away V1 as
such the applicant had lodged FIR No. 41
of 2022, u/ss 342, 354, 354-C, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, at Police
Station Kotwali, Jhansi.

[8] Having wronged V1, another
FIR No. 390 of 2022, u/ss 354, 352, 504,
506, I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act at
Police
Station
Kotwali,
Jhansi
was
instituted against Abhishek, Smt. Heera
Devi and Jeetu Prajapati (family members
of Vishal Prajapati).

[9] Thereafter, one Sohil Ali had
enticed away applicant's minor daughter
V2, as such he instituted an FIR No. 221 of
2023, u/s 363, 366, 342 & 368 I.P.C. at
Police Station Kotwali, Jhansi against six
persons, including Sohil Ali and Ashad Ali
and thus Vishal Prajapati, Sohil Ali and
their family members became inimical
towards applicant.

[10] The witnesses continued saying
that after attaining the age of majority V1
eloped with Vishal Prajapati regarding which
applicant lodged another FIR No. 301 of
2024, at Station-Kotwali, District-Jhansi vide
Case Crime u/ss 87, 352, 351(2) B.N.S.
against Vishal, his associates, Sohil Ali and
his family members and thereafter V1
solemnized marriage with Vishal Prajapati
and applicant's daughter V2 is also residing
with them.

[11] It is further alleged by said
witnesses that V2 at the instance of Vishal
5 All. Pradeep Soni Vs. State of U.P.
1821
Prajapati and Sohil, lodged a false case
against applicant and his family members
to refrain him from soliciting the FIRs
instituted against them.

[12] The victims have refused to be
medically examined as such the prosecution
story remains uncorroborated by any forensic
evidence.

[13] On the basis of statements of the
victims V1, V2 and thorough investigation,
the investigating officer filed a closure report
qua co-accused persons Ankit Soni, Prashant
Soni and Smt. Anju Soni. Thus, the
prosecution story stands falsified as it could
not stand on its legs and the final report
(Charge Sheet) has been submitted against
the applicant only.

[14] That as the F.I.R. is delayed by
about one year and there is no explanation of
the inordinate delay caused, as such, it has
been lodged as an afterthought after legal
consultation and deliberations.

[15] It is pertinent to note that no
specific date or time of the offence is
mentioned by the victims.

[16] The statement of V1 goes on to
show that present F.I.R. is not the outcome of
alleged incident of rape but a result of the
objections raised by the applicant against her
marriage to Vishal Prajapati.

[17] The statements of the said
victims recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. are
having
various
inconsistencies
and
omissions to each other and F.I.R., as such,
the prosecution story stands falsified.

[18] V2 is the real daughter of
applicant and V1 is his niece (being the
daughter of applicant's real sister) but it is
utterly surprising that they have not given
the correct parentage of other accused
persons (family members named in F.I.R.),
namely Ankit Soni, Prashant Soni and Anju
Soni rather mentioned it as unknown. It is
another example of legal advice to increase
the gravity of offence.

[19] V1 has alleged that she had
video-recorded the said indecent act
committed by the applicant with V2 and
had forwarded it to her, but there is no such
video on record and the investigation is
already complete. Thus, prosecution story
stands falsified on this count also.

[20]
V1
is
the
daughter
of
applicant's real sister, who expired in the
year 2016 due to cancer. Her father was an
acute patient of tuberculosis (T.B.) thus
after death of her mother, V1 along with
her father started residing with applicant
and his family. The applicant, being
guardian and head of the family, had taken
due care of the father-daughter duo. Sadly,
her father also expired in the year 2019 due
to the said tuberculosis, as such applicant
took due care of V1 as her guardian.

[21] That so far as the allegations
leveled in F.I.R. that alleged victims, at the
instance of Pradeep Soni (applicant), had
lodged false F.I.R. No. 32 of 2018, u/ss 354
(A)(1)(iv), 506 I.P.C. & 7/8 POCSO Act,
Police Station Kotwali, Jhansi is concerned, it
to be noted that during the course of medical
treatment of father of V1, one employee of
the hospital namely Suresh had outraged her
modesty on 19.01.2018 and caused injuries
on her lips. The applicant, being guardian,
lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. The medical
examination of V1 on 19.01.2018 revealed an
abrasion on lower lip. The said injury report
has been filed as Annexure No. 13 to the
affidavit filed with the bail application.
1822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[22] The statement of V1 was
corroborated by one Nurse at the hospital
Smt. Praveen Kareem. The information
furnished under Right to Information Act
regarding the treatment of the father of V1
at District Hospital, Jhansi from 18.01.2018
to 24.01.2018 has also been filed as
Annexure No. 15 to the affidavit filed with
the bail application.

[23] It is germane to say that
during the course of trial as Special Trial
No. 226 of 2018 'State of U.P. Vs Suresh',
V1 was produced and examined before
learned Trial Court as PW-2 and she has
stated that the said F.I.R. was instituted by
her uncle (Fufa). A copy of the statement of
PW-2 in Special Trial No. 226 of 2018 has
been filed as Annexure No. 16 to the
affidavit filed with the bail application.

[24] The residence of Vishal
Prajapati, with whom V1 had solemnized
marriage on 18.09.2024, is adjacent to the
house of the applicant. He kept an evil eye
on V1 and used to chase her and had even
forcibly given her a mobile phone. As such,
the applicant filed a complaint against
Vishal at Police Station Kotwali, Jhansi.
On the said complaint, the police called
Vishal and his family members at Police
Station and warned them whereupon Vishal
had given a written apology before Station
House Officer concerned to the effect that
he shall not repeat the said act in future. A
copy of the written apology given by
Vishal in the presence of his family
members and friend, has been filed as
Annexure No. 17 to the affidavit filed with
the bail application.

[25] Despite the said written
apology Vishal Prajapati on 19.01.2022,
forcibly took V1 and outraged her modesty.
Left with no option, the applicant instituted
an F.I.R. No. 41 of 2022, u/ss 342, 354,
354-C, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO
Act at Police Station Kotwali, Jhansi
against him on 22.01.2022. V1 supported
the prosecution story in her statements
recorded
u/ss
161
&
164
Cr.P.C.
respectively. A charge-sheet was filed in
the said case and the trial is proceeding as
Session Trial No. 274 of 2022 'State of
U.P. Vs. Vishal Prajapati', before the Court
of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Jhansi. During course of trial V1 was
produced and examined before learned trial
Court
as
PW-2.
During
course
of
examination, V1 has stated that she
instituted the instant F.I.R. against the
applicant under duress of Vishal Prajapati.

[26]
Regarding
an
offence
committed with V2 one F.I.R. No. 390 of
the 2022, u/ss 354, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 7/8 POCSO Act was also lodged by
applicant against family persons of Vishal
namely Abhishek, Smt. Heera Devi and
Jeetu Prajapati, at Police Station Kotwali,
District Jhansi. Victim V2 had supported
the case of prosecution in her statements
recorded u/ss 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. in the
said FIR.

[27] One Sohil Ali, who happens to
be a friend of Vishal Prajapati, was also
chasing applicant's daughter (V2). The
applicant filed a complaint at the concerned
Police Station. The police called Sohil Ali
at the concerned Police Station and warned
him whereupon he gave a written apology
and promised not to chase V2, but despite
the said promise he persisted chasing her
and ultimately trapped her in his love net.
True copy of the written apology dated
15.10.2022 given by Sohil at Police Station
Kotwali, District Jhansi, has been filed as
Annexure No. 23 to the affidavit filed with
the bail application.
5 All. Pradeep Soni Vs. State of U.P.
1823
[28] The accused Vishal, has been
granted bail by this Court in F.I.R. No. 41
of 2022, vide order dated 21.12.2022
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.24934 of 2022.

[29] That after his release from jail
Vishal Prajapati again approached V2,
while Sohil Ali was already in consensual
relationship with applicant's daughter V2.
Unaware
of
the
said
consensual
relationship between Sohil Ali and V2,
applicant
fixed
her
marriage
to
be
solemnized on 28.11.2023, and her Ring
Ceremony was held on 16.05.2023 at
Prayagraj. Certain photographs of Ring
Ceremony have been filed as Annexure
No.25 to the affidavit filed with the bail
application.

[30] The two victims left the house
with heavy cash and jewellery and stayed at
a hotel. Applicant went to report the matter
but found the victims with their friends,
whereby
the
applicant
was
illegally
detained at Police Outpost Unnao Gate, of
Police Station Kotwali. A complaint was
moved by applicant's son Prashant Soni at
Jan Sunwai Portal on 26.05.2023 vide
Reference No. 400100623011763. A true
photo copy of the complaint dated
25.05.2023
along with
receipt
dated
26.05.2023 issued from 'Jan Sunwai
Portal', have been collectively filed as
Annexure No. 28 to the affidavit filed with
the bail application.

[31] Thereafter one compromise
dated 27.05.2023, said to have been
executed between Sohil and V2, was
prepared at aforesaid Police Station, under
the patronage of the SHO concerned.

[32] That an illegal ceremony was
organised between Sohil Ali and V2 as the
victim was minor on the said date of
marriage and her consent, has no legal
sanctity in the eyes of law, as she was
illegally confined in the house of Sohil Ali
thus applicant being father lodged F.I.R.
No. 221 of 2023, u/ss 342, 366 & 363
I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, Jhansi on
06.06.2023 against Sohil Ali and his family
members.

[33] In the said case statement of
V2 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.
P.C.,
in
which
she
has
allegedly
substantiated the factum of compromise
and 'Jaimal Ceremony' and further alleged
that after 4 months, when she shall attain
the age of majority i.e. 18 years, she shall
solemnize marriage with Sohil Ali and
expressed her consent to go with her
parents. Thus she joined the applicant and
his family, consequently Sohil Ali and his
father namely Asad were sent to jail.

[34] Since V2 was adamant to
marry Sohil thus for the sake of her
happiness applicant did not object to bail
application moved by Sohil Ali and his
father, thus both were released on bail by
the Court concerned.

[35] The investigating officer had
submitted charge-sheet in the case against
Sohil Ali and his father before the Court on
28.07.2023, for the offences punishable
under Sections 363, 366 & 368 I.P.C. and
kept
investigation
pending
against
remaining accused persons namely Smt.
Shabana, Sharukh, Muskan and Afsar.
Session Trial No. 1017 of 2023 'State of
U.P. Vs. Sohil Ali And Another' is
proceeding against the accused persons
before the Court of learned Session Judge,
Jhansi.
During
pendency
of
further
investigation other accused persons of said
criminal case namely Smt. Shabana,
1824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sharukh, Muskan and Afsar were granted
anticipatory bail in the crime by this Court.
Another Session Trial No. 619 of 2025
'State of U.P. Vs. Muskan And Others' is
also proceeding at Court of learned Session
Judge,
Jhansi
against
other
accused
persons.

[36] The story did not end here,
rather Sohil Ali refused to marry V2 and
during trial she supported the prosecution
story in her examination-in-chief recorded
before Trial Court on 09.04.2024 and
deposed against Sohil Ali but thereafter she
again left the house on 17.09.2024 along
with Sohil Ali and deposed in his favour
during her cross-examination which was
recorded on 12.02.2025. Proceedings of
both the Session Trials are still pending
before learned Trial Court.

[37] Vishal Prajapati also refused
to solemnize marriage with V1 and
pressurized her to lodge F.I.R. against
applicant thus under his influence she
lodged F.I.R. No. 206 of 2023, u/ss 354(A),
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8
POCSO Act at Police Station Kotwali,
Jhansi
on
26.05.2023.
Despite
the
institution of the said F.I.R. Vishal
Prajapati did not solemnize marriage with
V1 thus she realized her fault and did not
support the case of prosecution in her
statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.
P.C., on 27.05.2023, and stated that on
account of some quarrel she lodged F.I.R.
against
applicant
by
levelling
false
allegations of outraging her modesty.

[38]
Thereafter
V1
sent
an
application to Senior Superintendent of
Police, Jhansi through registered post on
01.06.2023, mentioning therein that since
she was in love with Vishal Prajapati, and
her Uncle (Fufa) lodged an F.I.R. against
him as such she got annoyed and lodged a
false case against the applicant. Said
application was also supported by the
notary affidavit of V1. True photo copy of
the application as well as notary affidavit
dated 01.06.2023 along with postal receipt,
have also been filed as Annexure No.35 to
the affidavit filed with the bail application.

[39] Despite knowing the said fact,
I.O. filed a chargesheet u/ss 323, 354(A),
504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 7/8 POCSO Act
against the applicant. Special Trial No.
1035 of 2023 'State of U.P. Vs. Pradeep
Soni' is pending against applicant before
the Court of Additional District & Session
Judge/FTC (OAW), Jhansi. A compromise
was executed between applicant and V1 on
23.05.2024 which has been filed as
Annexure No. 37 to the affidavit filed with
the bail application.

[40]
On
the
basis
of
said
compromise applicant approached this
Court and filed Criminal Misc. Application
(under Section 482 Cr. P.C.) No. 21032 of
2024. In said application V1 appeared
before this Court through her Counsel and
filed short counter affidavit affirming the
factum of compromise between the parties.
True copy of the short counter affidavit
filed by V1 has been filed as Annexure
No.38 to the affidavit filed with the bail
application.

[41] On 28.08.2024 V1 moved an
application to not to take any coercive
measure against applicant before learned
Trial Court till the pendency of the
application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. No.
21032 of 2024 before this Court.

[42] That in the meantime, Vishal
Prajapati and Sohil Ali again took both the
victims V1 and V2 into their confidence
5 All. Pradeep Soni Vs. State of U.P.
1825
and promised to solemnize marriage with
them. Under the said allurement they
administered some intoxicating substance
to
applicant's
wife
rendering
her
unconscious stole jewellery worth about
Rs. 5,00,000/-, and Rs. 3,75,000/- cash
from the residence of applicant and
thereafter V1 had solemnized marriage
with Vishal Prajapati on 18.09.2024 at
Arya Samaj Mandir, Civil Lines, Prayagraj.

[43]
That
under
changed
circumstances, the said application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated
16.10.2024.
Thereafter
applicant
again
approached this Court and filed Criminal Misc.
Application (under Section 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
4157641 of 2024 for quashing of summoning
order dated 22.08.2023, charge-sheet dated
24.07.2023, as well as entire proceedings of
Session Trial No. 1035 of 2023, 'State of U.P.
Vs. Pradeep Soni', arising out of Case Crime
No. 206 of 2023, under Sections 354(A), 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act
Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, pending
before the Court of learned Additional District
Judge/CAW, Jhansi. The proceedings have
been stayed by this court vide order dated
04.12.2024.

[44] The applicant lodged one FIR
No. 301 of 2024, u/ss 87, 352, 351(2)
B.N.S. at police Station Kotwali, Jhansi
against
Vishal
Prajapati,
his
family
members and Sohil Ali, his family
members on 19.09.2024. Pursuant to said
F.I.R. V1 and Vishal Prajapati approached
this Court and filed Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 17738 of 2024 for quashing of
F.I.R. dated 19.09.2024. A closure report
has been filed in the said case.

[45]
The
allegation
that
the
applicant had instituted 10 cases against
several persons for extorting money is
false. In fact, there are only 5 FIRs
instituted against the said friends of victims
only that too as an onerous duty by the
applicant, being their guardian.

[46] Since the victims V1 and V2
are presently residing with Vishal Prajapati
and his friend Sohil Ali respectively, the
instant F.I.R. has been instituted against the
applicant and other family members by
cooking a false story, at their instance to
coerce the applicant to withdraw all the
criminal cases pending against Vishal
Prajapati, Sohil Ali and their family
members.

[47] In addition to the instant case
there are two more cases pending against
him which are: -

 (i) Case Crime No. 458 of 2022
(arising out NCR No. 95 of 2022) u/ss 323,
504, 325 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali,
District Jhansi. The applicant has been
acquitted by the Court of C.J.M., Jhansi
vide order dated 10.10.2023 which has
been filed as Annexure No.46 to the
affidavit filed with the bail application.

 (ii) Case Crime No. 206 of 2023,
u/ss 354(A), 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 7/8
POCSO Act at Police Station-Kotwali,
District Jhansi. Proceeding have been
stayed by this Court, vide order dated
04.12.2024, passed in Criminal Misc.
Application (u/s. 482 Cr. P.C.) No. 41576
of 2024.

[48] The applicant is in jail since
21.02.2025. There is no apprehension of
the applicant absconding or tampering with
the prosecution evidence and he is ready to
furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction
of this Court.
1826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE INFORMANT/STATE :

[49] The applicant is a practising
senior advocate at district courts, Jhansi
and is an influential person in the district.
He has misused his clout and has falsely
implicated several persons to extract money
from the said accused persons by misusing
the statements of the two victims, i.e. his
daughter and niece.

[50] The victims V1 and V2 have
reiterated the allegations made in F.I.R. and
have complemented and corroborated their
respective statements recorded u/s 180 and
183 B.N.S.S.

[51] The date of births of the
victims V1 and V2 are 02.04.2006 and
24.09.2005 respectively as such they were
minor at the time of the offence committed
by the applicant. His acts fall within the
category of highest mental depravity, as
such, he is not entitled for bail as he is
having criminal history of two cases
assigned to him.

 ANALYSIS :

[52] The following points are
worth consideration for the disposal of the
instant bail application: -

 (i) Criminal history : The
criminal history of two cases assigned to
the applicant has been explained in the light
of the judgment passed in the case of
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and
another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 as the
Supreme Court has observed that pendency
of several criminal cases against an accused
by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of
bail.

 (ii) Age of the Victims : It is
admitted to both the parties that the dates of
birth of the two victims are 02.04.2006 and
24.09.2005, respectively. Therefore, at the
time
of
the
alleged
incident,
both
individuals were marginally below the age
of majority.

 (iii) Conduct and Statements of
the Victims : The statements of the victims
have been inconsistent, showing signs of
vacillation
at
various
stages
of
the
proceedings. It is evident that the victims
entered into marriage, contrary to the
wishes of their guardian/family, which has
given
rise
to
the
present
dispute.
Furthermore, there have been multiple First
Information Reports (FIRs) filed between
the parties, indicating mutual distrust.

 (iv) Delay in institution of F.I.R.
: The FIR in the present case was lodged
after an inordinate and unexplained delay
of approximately one year, casting serious
doubt on the credibility of the allegations.

 (v)
Lack
of
Corroborative
Evidence : There is no forensic evidence
available on record to substantiate the
claims made by the victims. Additionally,
the victims voluntarily left the applicant's
residence and have since attained majority.

 (vi) The fulcrum of the five FIRs
mentioned in the instant FIR hinges on the
statement of the two victims and the
applicant does not carry any material force
in them.

 (vii) The shifting stand of the
victims, along with the fact that the
applicant's prior criminal history has been
adequately explained and does not suggest
any recurring behavioural pattern relevant
5 All. Pradeep Soni Vs. State of U.P.
1827
to the present case, further weakens the
prosecution's narrative.

 CONCLUSION :

[53] It is an established principle
that every adult individual possesses the
inviolable right to autonomy over their own
person, and no external interference with
that autonomy can be justified absent
lawful cause.

[54] The allegations if found true
are of extreme mental depravity and must
be dealt with an iron hand. However,
branding the applicant as a 'paedophile' in
the present matter is premature and legally
untenable, particularly in the absence of
any prior conduct or antecedent allegations
supporting such a characterization in the
FIR.

[55] This Court finds itself at a
juncture where traditional Indian values
confront the evolving norms of a rapidly
modernizing society-often influenced by
Western paradigms. In this context, the
applicant, who stood in a position of
guardianship over the alleged victims,
appears to have acted under the perceived
imperative of upholding family customs
and exercising supervisory authority, albeit
in a manner now contested as having
crossed lawful boundaries.

[56] It is a matter of record, mutually
acknowledged by the parties, that the
interpersonal dynamics between the applicant
and two victims markedly declined over time.
Both individuals exercised their autonomy in
contracting marriages of their own volition, a
course of action that was met with
pronounced disapproval and resentment by
the applicant. The matter can only be
properly dealt with by the trial court after
catering to the evidence adduced. It would
not be proper for this Court to express on the
merits of the case at this juncture.

[57] ⁠In the present case, the two
victims
have
repeatedly
altered
their
statements, exhibiting inconsistency akin to a
pendulum. It is also pertinent to note that the
First Information Reports (FIRs) were lodged
by the applicant concerning the two victims
only at a time when they were minors. The
said FIRs were filed against the victims'
alleged lovers and their family members.
Additionally, the present FIR has been lodged
after a considerable delay of approximately
one year. Furthermore, there is an absence of
forensic
evidence
to
substantiate
the
allegations. There is no recovery of any video
either.

[58] ⁠Considering these facts, the
wavering testimonies of the witnesses, the
delayed lodging of the FIR, the lack of
forensic corroboration, and the nature of the
earlier FIRs, coupled by the fact that the
criminal antecedents have been explained,
taking into consideration the settled dictum
that 'bail is rule and jail an exception' this
Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the
applicant.

[59]
Accordingly,
the
bail
application is allowed.

[60] Let the applicant- Pradeep
Soni, who is involved in aforementioned
case crime be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned subject to following
conditions. Further, before issuing the
release order, the sureties be verified.

 i) The applicant will not tamper
with the evidence during trial.
1828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 ii)
The
applicant
will
not
pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution
witnesses.

 iii) The applicant will appear
before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

[62]
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) 5 ILRA 1828
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 8881 of 2025

Jitendra Paswan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajit Narain Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law-The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986-Sections
2
&
3(1)
-The
Uttar
Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021- Rule 5
(3) (A)---It is not disputed that the earlier writ
petition was allowed on procedural grounds and
that liberty was granted to initiate fresh
proceedings in accordance with law. From the
record, it appears that the authorities have now
complied
with
the
requisite
procedural
mandates including completion of base case
investigations,
preparation
of
gang-chart,
convening of a joint meeting, approval by the
District Magistrate after application of mind. The
petitioner has a long-standing criminal history
and the allegations pertain to organized crime
across multiple districts---No procedural illegality
or arbitrariness has been demonstrated in the
initiation of the present proceedings under the
Act, 198.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. Dharmendra Kirthal Vs St. of U.P. & ors.2013
INSC 510

2. Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs St. of U.P. AIR 1987 All
235

3. Vinod Bihari Lal Vs St. of U.P. 2023 SCC
Online All 143

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Anil Kumar -X, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.N. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paritosh
Malviya, learned AGA-I for the Staterespondents.

2. The present writ petition has
been filed seeking quashing of the
impugned First Information Report dated
13.04.2025, registered as Case Crime
No.0244 of 2025, under Sections 3(1), 2(b)
(i), 2 (b) (xi), and 2 (b) (xxv) of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 19861 at Police
Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur, in
respect of the petitioner. A further prayer
has been made for issuance of a direction