The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a practising advocate from Jhansi who was accused of sexually exploiting his daughter and niece. The Court, presided over by Justice Krishan Pahal, allowed the bail application in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17325 of 2025, citing inconsistencies in the victims’ statements, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), and absence of corroborative forensic evidence.
Background
An FIR was lodged on December 6, 2024, by two victims, identified as V1 (niece of the applicant) and V2 (daughter of the applicant), alleging repeated incidents of sexual assault by the applicant at their shared residence. The applicant, a practising lawyer, was accused under Sections 376, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegations included threats, coercion, and repeated physical violations. V1 stated that the applicant threatened to evict her if she did not submit to his demands and allegedly raped her twice. V2 alleged molestation while asleep and claimed that she was repeatedly subjected to obscene acts by her father. They further alleged misuse of their identities by the applicant to implicate others in fabricated FIRs for financial gain.
Arguments by the Applicant
The defence challenged the veracity of the FIR, pointing out:
- A delay of approximately one year in filing the FIR.
- Inconsistent and contradictory statements by both victims at various stages of the proceedings.
- No forensic evidence or medical examination reports corroborating the allegations.
- Previous instances where the victims retracted or contradicted their statements during judicial proceedings.
- The applicant’s role as a guardian after the death of V1’s parents was emphasised to counter motives alleged by the prosecution.
- Several FIRs lodged by the applicant were argued to be protective measures against coercion from individuals who were said to have influenced the victims.
The applicant also submitted documentation showing that V1 and V2 had, at various times, supported the applicant’s case in statements before judicial authorities.
Arguments by the Prosecution
The State opposed bail on grounds that:
- The victims were minors at the time of the alleged incidents.
- The applicant was an influential person and allegedly exploited his status to manipulate legal proceedings.
- The nature of the allegations involved “highest mental depravity.”
- The criminal antecedents of the applicant were cited, though only two cases were actively assigned to him.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Pahal analysed several key aspects:
- Criminal History: Citing Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. [(2020) 11 SCC 648], the Court held that mere pendency of criminal cases does not justify denial of bail.
- Victims’ Ages: It was not disputed that both victims were minors at the time, yet were close to the age of majority.
- Conduct and Testimonies: The Court observed vacillation in the victims’ statements, frequent retractions, and inconsistencies.
- Delay in FIR: An unexplained delay of about one year was deemed detrimental to the prosecution’s case.
- Lack of Corroboration: Absence of medical examination and forensic evidence weakened the credibility of the accusations.
- Interpersonal Conflict: The Court noted that the victims’ decisions to marry against the applicant’s wishes seemed to have triggered the allegations.
The Court observed, “branding the applicant as a ‘paedophile’… is premature and legally untenable,” and emphasised that issues concerning autonomy and traditional family authority must be adjudicated based on trial evidence.
Conclusion and Order
The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions, including non-interference with evidence and appearance before the trial court.
Justice Pahal concluded, “taking into consideration the settled dictum that ‘bail is rule and jail an exception’, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail.”
Case: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17325 of 2025
