Branding Him As ‘Paedophile’ Is Premature: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Senior Advocate Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Daughter & Niece
The Allahabad High Court reiterated 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.
Justice Krishan Pahal, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a Senior Advocate who was accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter and niece.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application filed by the accused based in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, seeking bail.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal said, “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.”
The Bench reiterated 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.
Advocates Amit Daga and Vikas Tiwari appeared for the Applicant/Accused while AGA Arun Kumar Mishra, Advocates Achyut, and Ranjeet Singh appeared for the Opposite Party/State.
Case Background
A common FIR was instituted by two victims in December last year with the allegations that Applicant-accused’s niece and daughter lived with him. The accused was a practicing Senior Advocate at Jhansi. It was alleged that he tried to have physical relations with the victims several times. About a year ago when they were sleeping at home, he allegedly told his niece at 2 o’clock in the night that if she does not have relations with him, she shall be thrown out of the house. His niece was an orphan and got scared of his threats. Taking advantage of the situation, the accused alleged to have forcibly established physical relations with her twice. When she told this to the other accused persons, they instead pressurized her and said that if she told it to anyone, they shall kill her.
It was further alleged that once the accused’s daughter was sleeping at night, he pressed her chest, put his finger inside her salwar and molested her by inserting sensitive parts with his finger. When she screamed, he allegedly apologized and said that she should not tell it to anyone, else he shall commit suicide. Such obscene acts were repeated all the time and the niece who was major, ran away from home. It was also alleged that the accused misused his clout and got instituted about 10 cases against several persons and extorted about Rs. 70 lakhs from the accused persons. He kept on earning money by using the victims, this way. Resultantly, the victim (niece) moved an Application before the High Court but the Police did not register any FIR due to the accused’s fear. Hence, the FIR was instituted on joint Application of both victims.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “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.”
The Court added that 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”, it further remarked.
The Court noted that the two victims have repeatedly altered their statements, exhibiting inconsistency akin to a pendulum and that the FIRs were lodged by the accused 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”, also said the Court.
“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”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Bail Application and granted bail to the accused.
Cause Title- ABC v. State of UP (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:89445)
