It would be most imperative to note that in a most significant move with very far reaching implications, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled XXX through her mother YYY vs State of UP Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another in Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.-31 of 2022 in Neutral Citation No.- 2024:AHC-LKO:65194 that was pronounced just recently on 20.09.2024 has rejected a wife’s plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to her husband who she has accused of raping their minor daughter. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Bhatia also imposed a heavy cost of Rs 20,000 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. The Bench minced just no words to hold most unambiguously that, “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.”
To put it differently, it must be said that those woman who have a proclivity to level false allegations against the husband or against any other men and seek to use penal laws as a potent tool to wreak vengeance must now be very careful and must definitely now read this judgment in its entirety many times to comprehend fully that how they can themselves land in deep trouble if they dare to speak lies in court and level serious or bald allegations against a husband or any other men without any bona fide reason most recklessly! There can be just no gainsaying that the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has clearly demonstrated in this leading case that even if a woman ever dares to venture to take the court for a ride by easily misguiding them then they too would be also made to definitely pay very heavy costs for their misadventure! Very rightly so! The Lucknow Bench also made it indubitably clear in holding 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-wife seeks. There can be just no denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Pankaj Bhatia sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Heard the counsel for the applicant-complainant, Sri Vinod Kumar Tiwari who appears for the accused as well as learned AGA and perused the record.”
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 2 that, “The bail cancellation application has been filed seeking to cancel the bail granted to accused-respondent no.2 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act-1st Lucknow in FIR/Case Crime No.83 of 2021 under Sections 354-Ka, 376-AB, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.”
On a serious note, the Bench then laments in para 3 stating that, “The present case is a sad case, which reflects the manner in which, the fighting parents have dragged the daughter to settle scores amongst themselves.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “The facts, in brief, are that an application was filed on 08.02.2021 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that on 26.08.2020, when the minor daughter of the accused and the complainant who is the mother, was sleeping in the room, the accused who is the father entered into the room and molested her and allegations were levelled that he inserted the hand in the undergarments of the victim and tried to rub the private part and tried to penetrate through his finger. The medical of the victim was not got done. Based upon the said, initially the FIR came to be lodged under Section 354-Ka read with Section 504 and 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. Subsequently, after investigation, the FIR was filed under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 5 that, “The father (accused), had filed a bail application which was not pressed and subsequently, on his moving second bail application, the bail was granted by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act by means of a detailed order dated 01.11.2021.”
Be it also noted, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “While granting the bail, the court had noticed that there was matrimonial dispute in between the present applicant and the father of the victim. The court also noticed that the victim was not medically examined, the medical examination was specifically refused by the complainant. The court also noticed that on account of the matrimonial discord, the applicant was staying separately from her husband since the year 2010 and the child was also born in the year 2010 whereas in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it was alleged that the incident happened on 26.08.2020. The court also noticed that in the annexure filed on 29.09.2020, there was no mention of the incident that allegedly took place on 26.08.2020. The court also noticed that since the year 2010, the victim along with her mother was staying in the parental home with the two daughters. The court also noticed that in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., there was no reference of the alleged incident which took place on 26.08.2020. The court noticing that the accused, on account of such allegation, was in custody since 10.08.2021 and had no criminal history was enlarged on bail.”
It is also worth noting that the Bench notes in para 12 that, “The counsel for the accused opposes the bail cancellation application by arguing that while granting bail, the court had noticed the conduct of the complainant, the mother through whom the complaint was filed and had noticed that although the parties were staying separately since the year 2010 and litigation had happened in between them in which, there was no reference of the alleged incident to have taken place as was stated in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. coupled with the fact that the court had also noticed that there were no medico-legal examination, which was refused at the instance of the mother of the informant, the court had granted bail.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “Although, this court had issued directions for impleading DLSA as a party, and the mandate of Section of POCSO also prescribes for hearing a party however while hearing the bail cancellation application, it is necessary for this court to consider whether the accused has misused the liberty of bail or not, to which there is no material on record to suggest that the accused has misused the liberty. In fact it is clearly noticeable that it is the mother, the present applicant herein, who has misused the process of law in inflicting bald and scandalous allegations which are on the face of it wrong as observed by the order granting bail. The cancellation of bail is a serious matter and affects the life and liberty of the accused and should not be interfered casually as is being sought by the present applicant.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 14 holding that, “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.”
As a corollary, it would be worthwhile to note that the Bench then while exercising restraint on itself directs in para 15 stating unequivocally that, “Thus, for the reasons as recorded above, the present bail cancellation application is rejected with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) to be deposited by the applicant before the District Legal Services Authority. The court is restraining itself from imposing a heavier cost as, prima facie the applicant has misused the process of law which cannot be condoned by this court.”
As it turned out, the Bench while adding more to it then enunciates in para 16 of this robust judgment stipulating that, “In case, the costs are not paid within a period of two months from today and a certificate of payment is not deposited before the Senior Registrar within a period of two months from today, the Senior Registrar shall take steps for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue through the District Magistrate, Lucknow.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in para 17 of this notable judgment stating succinctly that, “Let a copy of this order be sent before the Senior Registrar Lucknow for compliance and further action.”
In sum, we thus see that the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has made it absolutely clear in this noteworthy judgment that it will no longer silently tolerate bald and reckless allegations by a woman on men without any strong evidence and would not hesitate in imposing cost as we see in this leading case! It must be also noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Pankaj Bhatia not only just rejected the bail cancellation application that was forwarded by the wife against her husband but also imposed heavy cost on her and made it crystal clear that it is restraining from imposing a heavier cost for misusing the process of law but in the same vein added that what she did cannot be ever condoned thus clearly making its huge resentment ostensibly visible! It is high time and women must now stop misusing the penal laws at their whims and fancies or else they would have to face the dire consequences themselves as we see so very palpably in this leading case! No denying it!
Author Bio
