Victim Testimonies Have Swung Like a Pendulum: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Advocate Accused of Sexual Assault by Daughter and Niece

“Branding the Applicant a ‘Paedophile’ Is Premature and Legally Untenable in Absence of Prior Conduct” – In a significant decision balancing serious allegations with procedural inconsistencies, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to advocate Pradeep Soni, who was accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter and niece. Deciding Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17325 of 2025, Justice Krishan Pahal found that the case was riddled with inconsistencies in statements, an unexplained one-year delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and a complex social context involving strained family dynamics and matrimonial autonomy of the victims.

The Court held: “The two victims have repeatedly altered their statements, exhibiting inconsistency akin to a pendulum... coupled with the lack of forensic corroboration, delayed FIR and explained antecedents, the case does not warrant further custodial detention.” [Para 57–58]

The case arose from an FIR registered on 6 December 2024, by two young women—one the daughter and the other the niece of the applicant Pradeep Soni, a senior practicing advocate in Jhansi. The girls alleged that Soni had repeatedly molested them over the years while they lived under his guardianship.

The allegations included coercion, sexual assault, and intimidation. V1 (niece) alleged that the applicant forcibly established relations with her twice and used threats of eviction. V2 (daughter) accused her father of molesting her and threatening suicide if she spoke up. It was further alleged that the applicant used both victims to falsely implicate others and extort money, citing a list of prior FIRs against various men accused of harassing the girls.

However, the applicant denied all charges and submitted that the FIR was a retaliatory move, filed after the girls defied his authority and contracted marriages with men he had previously accused of harassment. He emphasized the absence of medical examination, lack of video evidence, and frequent contradictions in victim statements, including retractions and compromises recorded during proceedings.

The Court scrutinized the following key aspects in granting bail: “It is admitted to both parties that the dates of birth of the two victims are 02.04.2006 and 24.09.2005 respectively. Therefore, at the time of the alleged incident, both individuals were marginally below the age of majority.” [Para 52(ii)]

While the age of the victims was technically below 18, the Court noted the “unique social circumstances”, including their autonomous decisions to marry against the applicant’s will and the clear deterioration in family relationships, which cast a shadow over the motive behind the complaint.

Justice Pahal observed: “The interpersonal dynamics between the applicant and the 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.” [Para 56]

On the issue of timing, the Court noted: “The FIR in the present case was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately one year, casting serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations.” [Para 52(iv)]

The Court also found no forensic or corroborative evidence. The girls had refused medical examination, and a purported video mentioned in the FIR was never recovered or produced.

Victim Statements and Inconsistencies

Justice Pahal highlighted the inconsistencies in the victims’ narratives:

“The statements of the victims have been inconsistent, showing signs of vacillation at various stages of the proceedings... exhibiting inconsistency akin to a pendulum.” [Para 52(iii), 57]

It was also noted that both girls had previously supported the applicant in earlier cases filed against their alleged harassers and later retracted or altered their versions under different influences.

In this context, the Court underscored the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence: “Bail is the rule, and jail an exception.” [Para 58]

Addressing the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the Court observed:

“The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in the light of the judgment in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that pendency of several criminal cases by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.” [Para 52(i)]

The Court further added: “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.” [Para 54]

One of the most profound observations in the judgment was the Court’s recognition of changing family dynamics in India:

“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. The applicant 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.” [Para 55]

Concluding that custodial detention was not warranted at this stage, the Court allowed the bail application, noting: “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.” [Para 56]

Accordingly, the Court directed that Pradeep Soni be released on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. “Observations made in granting bail shall not affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.” [Para 62]

This decision stands as a careful exercise in judicial restraint, acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, while also guarding against potential misuse of legal processes in complex family conflicts. The High Court has emphasized the necessity of objectivity, especially where the credibility of victim testimony is entangled with shifting social, emotional, and legal dynamics.

Date of Decision: 26 May 2025