Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2159 of 2025 Sibbu Alias Shivam Alias Ankit Dwivedi State Of U.P, And 3 Others Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aakansha Singh Chandraul, Brijesh Kumar Verma, Ratnendu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 127(2) B.N.S., Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Bahilpurwa, District Chitrakoot, during the pendency of trial. Vide order of this Court dated 14.02.2025 notice was issued to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. As per office report dated 17.03.2025, notice has been served upon opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, but no one has put in appearance on their behalf. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
Facts
As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant who is mother of the victim got a first information report lodged on 21.08.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 64(1), 127(2) B.N.S. 2023, Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the applicant stating inter alia that on 19.08.2024 at about 12:00 P.M. when her daughter was going towards a shop for buying goods. On the way, applicant came there and took her inside his house by holding her hand and kept her inside the house for six hours and raped her. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. With regard to the alleged incident dated 19.08.2024 the F.I.R. was lodged after two days on 21.08.2024. Though the victim in her statement under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. has made 2 BAIL No. 2159 of 2025 allegation of rape against the applicant, but said allegation is not corroborated from the medical examination report dated 21.08.2024 of the victim as the doctor did not give any opinion of sexual assault. It is next pointed out that statement of the victim has been recorded before the trial court, in which there are material contradictions which falsify the prosecution case and in this regard, it is pointed out that victim, during investigation in her statement, has stated that the applicant took her to a room on the roof of his house, where he did wrong things with her, whereas she in her statement before the trial court has stated that applicant took her to the room in front of the lawn. As such place of alleged occurrence of the alleged incident is disputed and doubtful on the face of record. It is also pointed out that during investigation victim has stated that at the time of incident, there was no one in the house of the applicant whereas she has stated before the trial court that on the day of incident, there was celebration of Rakshabandhan on Shivam's house and seeing the photographs (paper No. 18ख/9) in the file she also stated that in the photographs applicant's sister Sakshi and applicant Shivam are seen and she does not know the names of rest of the persons who are seen with them in the photograph. Referring the statement of PW-3 Devraj Kotarraya (grand father of the victim) it is also pointed out that earlier also he had lodged F.I.R. against one Radheyshyam over the issue of misdeed with his grand daughter but later on he got the matter compromised. On the strength of said submissions, much emphasis has been given by contending that family members of the victim are habitual to implicate the innocent persons and on account of major contradictions in the statement of the victim, possibility of conviction of the applicant is bleak. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.08.2024 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of first information report but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.
Legal Reasoning
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, prima facie, I find that there are contradictions in the statement of victim on several issues, which are also relevant for just decision of the case. The statement of the victim has already been recorded before the trial court, hence there is no possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses / evidences from the side of the applicant. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of 3 BAIL No. 2159 of 2025 the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and statement of victim, this Court is of the view that prima facie, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Sibbu alias Shivam alias Ankit Dwivedi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. September 10, 2025 Kashifa (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad