Gautam Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and

1. Sri Avadh Narayan Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal appears on behalf of the first informant and files vakalatnama of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal today in Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avadh Narayan Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal for the first informant/ opposite party no.2 and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State/ opposite party no.1 and perused the records.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Gautam Rajbhar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 177 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(F), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC & Section 4, 8, 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Devgaon, District Azamgarh.

4. This is third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29533 of 2023 (Gautam Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) was rejected by this Bench vide order dated 18.08.2023. The same reads as under: 2 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025 "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Moti Lal Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Gautam Rajbhar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 177 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(g), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC & Section 4, 8, 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at P.S. Deogaon, District Azamgarh.

4. The F.I.R. of the matter was initially lodged as Case Crime No. 192 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)F, (I), (N) I.P.C. and 4/8/12 POCSO Act at Police Station Shivajinagar, District Kolhapur, Maharashtra on 8.4.2023 on the basis of some information received from the hospital after which the victim was put certain questions and the same was recorded as an F.I.R. The present F.I.R. of the matter has been lodged on 23.4.2023 by the victim at Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh for the offences under Sections 376(2)(Chha), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) I.P.C. and 4,8,12 of POCSO Act, against the applicant wherein the said F.I.R. of Maharashtra has been copied which is in question-answer form in which the answers are as under:- My date of birth is 12.6.2006 and I am aged about 16 years 09 months and 27 days. I live in Village Sarai, Post Narsinghpur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. In my house my mother, grand-mother, grand- father, chacha, chachi and elder brother live. My father does the work of shuttering in Mumbai. I have studied up to class- 10th and then left the school. In Kabnoor my mama Gulab Rajaram Rajbhar lives. His wife was to be operated and as such I with my maternal grand-mother came to him on

28.3.2023. I had headache and vomiting many times and thus my mama took me to the hospital and admitted me on 6.4.2023 at about 11.00 p.m. The doctors told that I am pregnant since two months. Gautam Shamaram Rajbhar aged about 20 years who is cousin brother of my father is responsible for it with whom I had friendship since last three years. He lives besides my house. I established physical relationship with him 4-5 times due to which I became pregnant. He established relationship in May 2022 at a 3 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025 closed building behind my house. Up till now it was repeated 4-5 times. I am giving the statement without pressure of any one. I have read my statement and it is the same what I have stated. I have given the statement in front of my mama Gulab Rajaram Rajbhar out of my own will.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she was having friendship with the applicant since last three years and there was love affair between them and physical relationship was with her consent. The applicant did not make physical relationship forcefully. He is her neighbour. It is argued that thus the present case is a case of consent. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 16 and is in jail since 24.4.2023.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per High School Marksheet of the year 2021 the date of birth of the victim as recorded therein is 12.6.2006 and as such she was aged about 16 years at the time of incident. It is argued that the victim has stated that physical relationship was established between the applicant and herself in May 2022 with her consent but since she was a minor girl, consent would not have any relevance in the matter. It is argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R., in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and there is allegation of his establishing physical relationship. It is argued that therefore, the prayer for bail be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. lodged by the victim herself on the basis of her being questioned by the police of Maharashtra of which the F.I.R. was initially lodged therein but when she was brought within the territory of Uttar Pradesh, the said F.I.R. was copied and lodged herein. Although the victim states of physical relationship with the applicant out of her own sweet will but the High School Marksheet goes to show that she was a minor girl at the time of incident and consent of a minor is of no worth.

8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature, gravity of the offence and the victim is a minor girl, no case for bail is made out.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected." 4 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025

5. The second bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42326 of 2023 (Gautam Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Bench vide order dated

27.02.2025. The same reads as under: "1. List revised.

2. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application, despite the fact that there are three learned counsels appearing in the matter.

3. Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State are present.

4. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Gautam Rajbhar with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.177 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(F), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) I.P.C. and Section 4, 8. 12 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali Deogaon, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

5. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29533 of 2023 (Gautam Rajbha vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

6. Since, there is no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant to press the present second bail application, even in the revised list, the present bail application is dismissed for non prosecution. "

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits on the ground that victim is a minor and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence, the Court was of the opinion that no case for bail is made out. It is submitted while placing paragraph 20 of the affidavit in support of the bail application that the correct date of birth of the victim is 01.03.2025 as mentioned in the Mark-sheet of Class-I issued by the Headmaster of Shiv Prasad Bal Niketan Sarain Narsinghpur, Block Palhana, District Azamgarh. The copy of the said mark-sheet has been placed before the Court which is Anenxure-12 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that the date of birth of the victim as recorded in her High School Mark-sheet, 5 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025 the copy of which is Annexure-13 to the bail application of and more particularly at page 87 of the paper-book goes to show her date of birth as

12.06.2006 which has been got written by her guardian for taking the benefit of lesser age. It is submitted that therefore the victim is a major girl. It is further submitted that the date of birth of the victim on the date of incident thus was 01.03.2005 and she was a major.

7. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025: INSC: 918 and while placing paragraph nos.19, 20, 21 and 22 of the same has submitted that the Apex Court has held that records maintained by a private school would not be a public document. Further, it is submitted that the age of the victim as recorded in the Mark-sheet of Class-I is her correct age from which she would be major. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents as stated in para 30 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 24.04.2023.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and submitted that as per the Juvenile Justice Rules, a Matriculation Certificate, if available, has to be given priority over and above the other documents. It is submitted that as per the High School Examination Result, 2021, the date of birth of the victim recorded therein is 12.06.2006 and thus from the date of incident she was a minor. It is submitted that the argument of learned counsel for the applicant is counter productive in itself, inasmuch as at one point of time, he seeks reliance on the Mark-sheet of Class-I issued by Private School, the copy of which is at page 80 of the paper-book, and on the other hand argues that the same is not a public document. It is submitted that first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated

18.08.2023. There is no fresh and new ground in the present bail application.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by his Court. The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution. Insofar as the question of date of birth of the victim is concerned, the High-School Mark-sheet is available, which shows her date of birth as 12.06.2006. From the same, she is a minor. Thus, there is no fresh and new ground in the bail application. 6 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025

10. The bail application stands dismissed. November 26, 2025 CS/- (Samit Gopal,J.)

1. Sri Avadh Narayan Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal appears on behalf of the first informant and files vakalatnama of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal today in Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avadh Narayan Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal for the first informant/ opposite party no.2 and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State/ opposite party no.1 and perused the records.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Gautam Rajbhar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 177 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(F), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC & Section 4, 8, 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Devgaon, District Azamgarh.

4. This is third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29533 of 2023 (Gautam Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) was rejected by this Bench vide order dated 18.08.2023. The same reads as under: 2 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025 "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Moti Lal Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Gautam Rajbhar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 177 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(g), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC & Section 4, 8, 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at P.S. Deogaon, District Azamgarh.

4. The F.I.R. of the matter was initially lodged as Case Crime No. 192 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)F, (I), (N) I.P.C. and 4/8/12 POCSO Act at Police Station Shivajinagar, District Kolhapur, Maharashtra on 8.4.2023 on the basis of some information received from the hospital after which the victim was put certain questions and the same was recorded as an F.I.R. The present F.I.R. of the matter has been lodged on 23.4.2023 by the victim at Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh for the offences under Sections 376(2)(Chha), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) I.P.C. and 4,8,12 of POCSO Act, against the applicant wherein the said F.I.R. of Maharashtra has been copied which is in question-answer form in which the answers are as under:- My date of birth is 12.6.2006 and I am aged about 16 years 09 months and 27 days. I live in Village Sarai, Post Narsinghpur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. In my house my mother, grand-mother, grand- father, chacha, chachi and elder brother live. My father does the work of shuttering in Mumbai. I have studied up to class- 10th and then left the school. In Kabnoor my mama Gulab Rajaram Rajbhar lives. His wife was to be operated and as such I with my maternal grand-mother came to him on

28.3.2023. I had headache and vomiting many times and thus my mama took me to the hospital and admitted me on 6.4.2023 at about 11.00 p.m. The doctors told that I am pregnant since two months. Gautam Shamaram Rajbhar aged about 20 years who is cousin brother of my father is responsible for it with whom I had friendship since last three years. He lives besides my house. I established physical relationship with him 4-5 times due to which I became pregnant. He established relationship in May 2022 at a 3 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025 closed building behind my house. Up till now it was repeated 4-5 times. I am giving the statement without pressure of any one. I have read my statement and it is the same what I have stated. I have given the statement in front of my mama Gulab Rajaram Rajbhar out of my own will.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she was having friendship with the applicant since last three years and there was love affair between them and physical relationship was with her consent. The applicant did not make physical relationship forcefully. He is her neighbour. It is argued that thus the present case is a case of consent. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 16 and is in jail since 24.4.2023.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per High School Marksheet of the year 2021 the date of birth of the victim as recorded therein is 12.6.2006 and as such she was aged about 16 years at the time of incident. It is argued that the victim has stated that physical relationship was established between the applicant and herself in May 2022 with her consent but since she was a minor girl, consent would not have any relevance in the matter. It is argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R., in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and there is allegation of his establishing physical relationship. It is argued that therefore, the prayer for bail be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. lodged by the victim herself on the basis of her being questioned by the police of Maharashtra of which the F.I.R. was initially lodged therein but when she was brought within the territory of Uttar Pradesh, the said F.I.R. was copied and lodged herein. Although the victim states of physical relationship with the applicant out of her own sweet will but the High School Marksheet goes to show that she was a minor girl at the time of incident and consent of a minor is of no worth.

8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature, gravity of the offence and the victim is a minor girl, no case for bail is made out.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected." 4 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025

5. The second bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42326 of 2023 (Gautam Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Bench vide order dated

27.02.2025. The same reads as under: "1. List revised.

2. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application, despite the fact that there are three learned counsels appearing in the matter.

3. Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State are present.

4. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Gautam Rajbhar with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.177 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(F), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) I.P.C. and Section 4, 8. 12 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali Deogaon, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

5. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29533 of 2023 (Gautam Rajbha vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

6. Since, there is no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant to press the present second bail application, even in the revised list, the present bail application is dismissed for non prosecution. "

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits on the ground that victim is a minor and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence, the Court was of the opinion that no case for bail is made out. It is submitted while placing paragraph 20 of the affidavit in support of the bail application that the correct date of birth of the victim is 01.03.2025 as mentioned in the Mark-sheet of Class-I issued by the Headmaster of Shiv Prasad Bal Niketan Sarain Narsinghpur, Block Palhana, District Azamgarh. The copy of the said mark-sheet has been placed before the Court which is Anenxure-12 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that the date of birth of the victim as recorded in her High School Mark-sheet, 5 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025 the copy of which is Annexure-13 to the bail application of and more particularly at page 87 of the paper-book goes to show her date of birth as

12.06.2006 which has been got written by her guardian for taking the benefit of lesser age. It is submitted that therefore the victim is a major girl. It is further submitted that the date of birth of the victim on the date of incident thus was 01.03.2005 and she was a major.

7. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025: INSC: 918 and while placing paragraph nos.19, 20, 21 and 22 of the same has submitted that the Apex Court has held that records maintained by a private school would not be a public document. Further, it is submitted that the age of the victim as recorded in the Mark-sheet of Class-I is her correct age from which she would be major. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents as stated in para 30 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 24.04.2023.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and submitted that as per the Juvenile Justice Rules, a Matriculation Certificate, if available, has to be given priority over and above the other documents. It is submitted that as per the High School Examination Result, 2021, the date of birth of the victim recorded therein is 12.06.2006 and thus from the date of incident she was a minor. It is submitted that the argument of learned counsel for the applicant is counter productive in itself, inasmuch as at one point of time, he seeks reliance on the Mark-sheet of Class-I issued by Private School, the copy of which is at page 80 of the paper-book, and on the other hand argues that the same is not a public document. It is submitted that first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated

18.08.2023. There is no fresh and new ground in the present bail application.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by his Court. The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution. Insofar as the question of date of birth of the victim is concerned, the High-School Mark-sheet is available, which shows her date of birth as 12.06.2006. From the same, she is a minor. Thus, there is no fresh and new ground in the bail application. 6 BAIL No. 25891 of 2025

10. The bail application stands dismissed. November 26, 2025 CS/- (Samit Gopal,J.)