# Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 438
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-19
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. First Bail Application No. 10374 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prakash-narayan-sharma-babali-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-50219
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri Sunil Srivastava, A.G.A., Sri Yogendra
Srivastava,
Sri
Deepak
Kumar
Kulshreshtha, Sri Shambhu Mani Tripathi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 164 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 323, 354, 354K, 376, 406, 504 & 506 - Application for Bail
- FIR - applicant who is an active advocate and
victim was his client - victim used to visit him
for purpose of discussing cases and later on
both of them became intimated and their
intimacy was so open that she was comfortable
with applicant even in presence of applicant's
wife - due to certain monetary dispute,
consensual relationship between applicant and
victim become sour - considering the nature of
evidence placed on record, it appears that
applicant used to have photographs with
dignitaries including Judges to show him to be a
very influential person and victim was trapped in
the web of pornography created by applicant
and she was forced to act in terms of directions
of
applicant
including
to
have
physical
relationship with him - court finds that, it may
not be a case of honeytrap rather the applicant
has acted beyond relationship of an advocate
and client and entered in an arena where social
boundaries were broken and later on led to
various disputes and allegations - allegations of
pornography and rival claim on financial dispute
may be tilt towards applicant for consideration
of his bail application and since during trial
St.ment of victim has not been recorded till
date, therefore, at this stage if applicant gets
bail, he will definitely try to influence her -
accordingly, bail application rejected - directions
issued for record the St.ment of victim
expeditiously. (Para - 12, 13, 14, 15)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali Vs. State of U.P.
439

## Text

438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 376AB of I.P.C., in which
minimum sentence of 20 years has been
provided. Apart from this presumption
under Section 29 of the POCSO Act shall
also be drawn against the accusedapplicant.

15. Though all sexual assaults on female
children are not reported and do not come to
light yet there is an alarming and shocking
increase of sexual offences committed on
children. This is due to the reasons that
children are ignorant of the act of the rape and
are not able to offer resistance and become
easy prey for lusty brutes who display the
unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of
luring female children and young girls.
Therefore, such offenders who are menace to
the civilized society should be mercilessly and
inexorably punished in the severest terms.

16. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case as well as
keeping in view the submissions advanced
on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role
assigned to applicant and severity of
punishment, I do not find any good ground
to release the applicant on bail.

17. Accordingly, the bail application
is rejected.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 438
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Crl. Misc. First Bail Application No. 10374 of
2023

Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali
 ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri V.P. Srivastava (Sr. Advocate), Sri Vijay
Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Sunil Srivastava, A.G.A., Sri Yogendra
Srivastava,
Sri
Deepak
Kumar
Kulshreshtha, Sri Shambhu Mani Tripathi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 164 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 323, 354, 354K, 376, 406, 504 & 506 - Application for Bail
- FIR - applicant who is an active advocate and
victim was his client - victim used to visit him
for purpose of discussing cases and later on
both of them became intimated and their
intimacy was so open that she was comfortable
with applicant even in presence of applicant's
wife - due to certain monetary dispute,
consensual relationship between applicant and
victim become sour - considering the nature of
evidence placed on record, it appears that
applicant used to have photographs with
dignitaries including Judges to show him to be a
very influential person and victim was trapped in
the web of pornography created by applicant
and she was forced to act in terms of directions
of
applicant
including
to
have
physical
relationship with him - court finds that, it may
not be a case of honeytrap rather the applicant
has acted beyond relationship of an advocate
and client and entered in an arena where social
boundaries were broken and later on led to
various disputes and allegations - allegations of
pornography and rival claim on financial dispute
may be tilt towards applicant for consideration
of his bail application and since during trial
St.ment of victim has not been recorded till
date, therefore, at this stage if applicant gets
bail, he will definitely try to influence her -
accordingly, bail application rejected - directions
issued for record the St.ment of victim
expeditiously. (Para - 12, 13, 14, 15)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali Vs. State of U.P.
439
1. St. Of Raj., Jaipur Vs Balchand @ Baliay (AIR
1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535;

2.
Gurcharan
Singh
Vs
St.
(Delhi
Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118);

3. St. of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8
SCC 21;

4. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs Ashis Chatterjee &
anr.(2010)14 SCC 496;

5. Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118;

6. Ishwarji Mali Vs St. of Guj. & anr., 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 55;

7. Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs The St. of U.P. & ors.,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 89;

8. Ashim Vs National Investigation Agency
(2022) 1 SCC 695;

9. Ms. Y Vs St. of Raj. & anr.:2022 SCC OnLine
SC 458;

10. Manoj Kumar Khokhar Vs St. of Raj. & anr.
(2022)3 SCC 501;

11. Deepak Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2022)8
SCC 559)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Applicant - Prakash Narayan
Sharma @ Babali has approached this
Court for bail in Case Crime No. 10 of
2023 under Sections 147, 323, 354, 354-K,
406, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C., Police Station-
New Agra, District- Agra. He is in jail
since 09.02.2023.

2. Before entering into merit of this
case, it would be apt to advert to nature of
relationship between a lawyer and his client
which is solely founded on trust and
confidence, however, the facts of present
case are absolutely contrary to it.

3. Informant of present case is the
victim herself and it has been alleged that
she approached the applicant as his client to
take up her cases and it appears that during
frequent interactions, they became close
and
entered
into
relationship
which
includes victim to visit along with applicant
and his wife to various places as well as
along with applicant only to various places.
Number of photographs are placed on
record that victim was comfortable with
applicant even in presence of his wife. The
photographs also indicate that they were
very close. Even certain photographs are
also recovered which shows and that
applicant and victim was not looking
embarrassed rather comfortable even when
their photographs are clicked in their
birthday suits in intimating positions i.e.
they were deeply involved in physical
relationship also.

4. The victim has alleged that
applicant has gained her confidence and
even victim has provided a room on rent
for him as there was certain dispute
between applicant and his wife and that
victim has given a loan of Rs. 40 lakh to
applicant as he wanted to contest an
assembly election after taking it from her
elder sister but applicant not only refused to
return money but disappeared for some
time also and on the date of occurrence, i.e.
04.01.2023, on a road nearby Court
campus, a scuffle took place between
victim and applicant and his associates
wherein she was mercilessly beaten even
on her private parts.

5. The victim has further disclosed
that earlier, the applicant has posed himself
to be an influential person being close to
prominent persons including Judges and
officers and that he was involved in
preparing porn films and has shown
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
multiple unsolicited photographs of other
women and threatened the victim to act in
terms of direction of applicant and even to
allow him to click her photographs in
intimating gestures and positions and has
repeatedly made physical relationship with
victim against her wishes also and has
threatened of dire consequence, if victim
refuses to act in terms of direction of the
applicant.

6. Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Vijay Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for applicant
submits that applicant is not disputing that
he has a very comfortable relationship with
victim
but
it
was
only
consensual
relationship and victim has accompanied
with applicant even along with his wife to
various places and have very close
intimacy with victim. Even the photographs
of various places as well as intimate
photographs have also been denied.

7. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that this relationship can
be termed as a honeytrap that initially the
victim has not objected of taking intimated
photographs with applicant, even in their
birthday suits. However, the allegation of
money as mentioned by victim has been
vehemently denied that it was the applicant
who paid the victim and she refused to
return and started blackmailing that in case
huge amount has not been paid to her, she
will make the circumstances worse and for
that applicant has to face social disgrace.

8. Learned Senior Advocate has further
submitted that it may be a case where strong
intimacy and consensual relationship between
applicant and victim become sour by passing
time. No independent witness has been
examined in regard to allegation of assault by
applicant and his associates on a road near the
Court and that victim who has already given
her statement during investigation and has
also given number of photographs to
prosecution which are part of record,
therefore, there is no likelihood that applicant
may influence the victim.

9. Prayer for bail have been vehemently
opposed by S/Sri Sunil Srivastava, learned
A.G.A. for State and Yogendra Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for victim and
submitted that applicant is an advocate only
for name and his real business was to prepare
porn films and for that he used his women
clients earlier also and victim was also
trapped in the web of porn industry.

10. Applicant has woven a web that
initially he acted to be nice with victim and
has gained her confidence and trust and
entered into physical relationship as well as to
visit many places along with her. He has also
allowed victim to be a friendly entrance in his
house even in presence of his wife. The
nature of photographs prima facie indicate
that applicant was not ashamed to be clicked
along with victim in their birthday suits and
that victim has remained consistent in her
statement under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. about above referred modus-operandi
of applicant and that he has repeatedly made
physical relationship with victim against her
will by extending threat of putting her
unsolicited photographs for the purpose of
pornography and that victim has given huge
amount of money on loan to applicant but he
has refused to return the same.

11.

LAW
ON
BAIL
-
A
SUMMARY

(A) The basic rule may perhaps
be tersely put as bail, not jail.

(B) Power to grant bail under
Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude
5 All. Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali Vs. State of U.P.
441
but not an unfettered discretion, which calls
for exercise in a judicious manner and not
as a matter of course or in whimsical
manner.

(C) While passing an order on an
application for grant of bail, there is no
need to record elaborate details to give an
impression that the case is one that would
result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an
acquittal.
However,
a
Court
cannot
completely divorce its decision from
material aspects of the case such as
allegations made against accused; nature
and gravity of accusation; having common
object or intention; severity of punishment
if allegations are proved beyond reasonable
doubt and would result in a conviction;
reasonable apprehension of witnesses being
influenced by accused; tampering of
evidence; character, behaviour, means,
position
and
standing
of
accused;
likelihood of offence being repeated; the
frivolity in the case of prosecution;
criminal antecedents of accused and a
prima facie satisfaction of Court in support
of charge against accused. The Court may
also take note of participation or part of an
unlawful
assembly
as
well
as
that
circumstantial evidence not being a ground
to grant bail, if the evidence/ material
collected establishes prima facie a complete
chain of events. Parity may not be an only
ground but remains a relevant factor for
consideration of application for bail.

(D) Over crowding of jail and
gross delay in disposal of cases when
undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not
due to their fault) may give rise to possible
situations that may justify invocation of
Article 21 of Constitution, may also be
considered along with other factors.

(See,
State
Of
Rajasthan,
Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977
SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535; Gurcharan
Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration),
(1978) 1 SCC 118); State of U.P. vs.
Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21;
Prasanta
Kumar
Sarkar
vs. Ashis
Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496;
Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2
SCC 118; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of
Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 55; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State
of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
89; Ashim vs. National Investigation
Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695; Ms. Y vs.
State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC
OnLine SC 458; Manoj Kumar Khokhar
vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3
SCC 501; and, Deepak Yadav vs. State of
U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559)

12. In the present case, applicant has
declared himself to be an active advocate
and a person having luxurious car and
luxurious lifestyle. The narration of facts in
first information report as well as statement
of victim recorded under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C. are consistent as well as that
the applicant has himself not denied that
victim was his client. Victim used to visit
him for the purpose of discussing cases and
later on both of them became intimated and
their intimacy was so open that she was
comfortable
with
applicant
even
in
presence of applicant's wife. Both of them
have used to visit many places together as
well as along with his wife and comfortably
clicked photographs being together.

13. There is substance in argument of
learned Senior Advocate that due to certain
monetary dispute, consensual relationship
between applicant and victim becomes
sour. However, considering the nature of
evidence collected during investigation,
specifically, nature of photographs placed
on record of applicant and victim being
intimated even in their birthday suits prima
facie indicates that applicant was having
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
some other interest and was engulfed in
such activity instead of to be active and
diligent towards his profession. It also
appears that he used to have photographs
with dignitaries including Judges to show
him to be a very influential person. It also
appears that victim was trapped in the web
of pornography created by applicant and
she was forced to act in terms of directions
of applicant including to have physical
relationship with him as well as to allow
him to have photographs in indecent
manner. As such it may not be a case of
honeytrap rather the applicant has acted
beyond relationship of an advocate and
client and entered in an arena where social
boundaries were broken and later on led to
various disputes and allegations which
includes financial dispute also for that there
are
rival
claims.
The
allegation
of
pornography does not appear to be prima
facie substantiated with evidence collected
during investigation and thereafter the
victim has lodged the F.I.R. and contents
thereof
remained
consistent
in
her
statement recorded under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C.

14. Above circumstances such as
factor of long consensual relationship,
nature of photographs, nature of evidence
in regard to allegation of pornography and
rival claims on financial dispute, may be
tilt towards applicant for consideration of
his bail application, however, a very crucial
factor still goes against applicant that he is
well acquainted with victim and have
intimacy also and since during trial
statement of victim has not been recorded
till date, therefore, at this stage, if applicant
gets bail, he will definitely try to influence
her.

15. Therefore, considering overall
aspects of present case, position of
applicant and nature of allegations, I do not
find any substantial ground to grant bail to
applicant at this stage. Accordingly, bail
application is hereby rejected and Trial
Court shall take all endeavour to record
statement of the victim expeditiously,
preferably within a period of three months
from today, if there is no legal impediment.

16. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 442
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14987 of 2023

Vijay Mishra ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Saurabh Raj Srivastava, Sri G.S.
Chaturvedi (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Abhishek Yadav, Sri Ratnendu
Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 376-D, 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 406 & 506
-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, - Section
- 11, 37 - Application for Bail - FIR - applicant
is a hard core criminal and a leader of Inter
District Gang and having history sheet of 85
cases in different districts and district wise
criminal history - gravity of allegations and
severity of punishment - court finds that,
applicant is very influential political figure of the
St. of UP and out of 85 case 13 cases are still
pending and in two cases he has already
convicted - therefore possibility cannot be ruled