‘Right to Livelihood Cannot Be Curtailed’: Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Govt Employee Convicted in Minor Daughter's Rape Case

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a government employee convicted for sexual assault of his minor daughter, observing that his criminal appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future, and accordingly stayed the operation of his conviction and sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

"He is a Government servant and his right to earn his livelihood for survival cannot be curtailed because of implication in this case," said the bench of Justices Prashant Mishra and Siddharth.

Pravesh Singh Tomar, a Lekhpal, was convicted under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

An FIR was lodged on January 12, 2020, by Tomar’s estranged wife, accusing him of repeatedly sexually assaulting their minor daughter over several years. According to the prosecution version recorded in the trial court judgment, the informant alleged that her husband had been abusing their daughter since childhood and had continued the assaults even after the girl was sent to Vanashthali Vidyapeeth in Jaipur for studies. It was claimed that the accused would allegedly take the minor from the institution, transport her to hotels and tourist destinations, and sexually assault her along with his friends.

The FIR further alleged that the sexual abuse resulted in the girl becoming pregnant, after which an abortion was carried out at a private hospital, with the accused misrepresenting himself as her uncle. The informant also accused her husband of threatening and assaulting both her and the victim to prevent disclosure, and alleged complicity of other family members.

Following registration of the FIR, the minor was medically examined on the same day. However, the counsel for the convict submitted that the medico-legal examination did not reveal any external or internal injuries. Subsequent ultrasound examinations also reported no abnormalities. Statements of the victim were later recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating allegations of long-term sexual abuse.

After trial, the sessions court convicted Tomar under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him accordingly. He was taken into custody following conviction, despite having been on bail during the trial.

Challenging the conviction, Tomar approached the High Court, arguing that the prosecution case was riddled with contradictions and that the testimony of the victim and the informant had undergone material improvements over time. His counsel also placed extensive reliance on the long history of matrimonial litigation between the parties, contending that the couple had been living separately since 2003 and that the victim had been raised at her maternal home with limited access by the appellant.

The appellant also pointed out that the medical evidence did not corroborate the allegations of repeated sexual assault or abortion, and argued that the trial court had ignored defence material, including documents and letters purportedly written by the victim. It was further argued that the trial court’s examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was prejudicial and impaired his ability to defend himself.

Opposing the bail plea, the state relied on the seriousness of the allegations and the conviction recorded by the trial court. However, during the hearing, the prosecution could not effectively rebut the appellant’s submissions regarding the delay in disposal of criminal appeals.

Allowing the bail application, the High Court noted the heavy pendency of criminal appeals and observed that there was a remote possibility of the appeal being heard in the near future. The bench held that continued incarceration during pendency of the appeal was not justified in the circumstances.

Court ordered suspension of the conviction and sentence, granted bail subject to conditions, and directed the appellant to deposit 50 per cent of the fine within one month of release.

Case Title: Pravesh Singh Tomar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Order Date: December 12, 2025

Bench: Justices Prashant Mishra and Siddharth