'Bald Allegations': Allahabad HC Imposes ₹20K Cost On Woman Who Sought Bail Cancellation Of Husband Accused Of Raping Daughter

A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia also imposed a cost of Rs. 20K on her as it prima facie noted that in the order granting bail to her husband/accused, the lower court had observed that the allegations levelled by the applicant-wife were bald and reckless.

“This court has no hesitation in holding that the present applicant has from the very inception misused the process of law in making reckless allegations,” the Court observed.

Essentially, the applicant-wife moved the instant plea to cancel the bail granted to her husband (accused) by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act-Ist Lucknow in FIR under sections 354-Ka, 376-AB, 504 and 506 IPC.

In the said FIR, lodged at the instance of the applicant-wife (complainant), it was alleged that on August 20, 2020, when her minor daughter was sleeping in the room, her father (the accused) entered her room and molested her.

The father (accused) was initially denied bail; however, a POCSO Special Judge allowed his second bail plea in November 2021. The Special Court also noted that a matrimonial dispute existed between the applicant and the victim's father, and the alleged victim was also not medically examined (as the complainant/mother refused).

In its order granting bail, the POCSO Court also highlighted that the applicant and the accused had been living separately since 2010, and the alleged victim had been with her mother at her parental home since 2010. 

It was also noted that in the application moved under section 125 CrPC by the wife-applicant, there was no reference to the alleged incident. Therefore, noticing that the accused, on account of such allegation, had been in custody since August 2021 and had no criminal history, he was enlarged on bail.

Now seeking cancellation of his bail, the applicant-wife moved the HC on the grounds that in the second bail application, the DLSA or the victim were not made a party as per the directions issued by the HC in Junaid Case 2021.

Reliance was also placed on an order of the HC in Bail No. 8227 of 2021 (Rohit vs. State), wherein Section 439(1-A) of the CrPC was referred to, which mandates that the court must hear the victim when considering a bail application under Section 376 IPC and ensure that the informant is served notice of the bail application, as required by Section 40 of the POCSO Act.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, while the Court considered the mandate of the POCSO Act, which states that it is necessary to hear the victim while dealing with bail petitions,

However, it emphasised the need to also assess whether the accused had misused bail. The Court noted that there was no evidence on record indicating any misuse of bail by the accused.

The Court further noted that it was noticeable that the mother, the present applicant, had misused the process of law in inflicting bald and scandalous allegations against her husband, as was observed in the order granting bail.

The Court also observed that the cancellation of bail is a serious matter that affects the life and liberty of the accused and should not be interfered with casually, as the present applicant seeks.

In view of this, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20K on her and dismissed her plea, underscoring that the present applicant has misused the process of law from the very inception in making reckless allegations against her husband.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Prashant Shukla

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Vijay Kumar Verma, Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Case title – XXX through her mother YYY vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Deptt. Of Home And Another

Case citation:

Click Here ToRead/Download Order