Karan Alias Ramkaran v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anup Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.780 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years on 12.10.2024 at about 06:00 p.m. The victim is stated to have taken away Rs.50,000/- cash and ornaments worth Rs.2 lakh along with her. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that she had taken away Rs.50,000/- cash and ornaments worth Rs.2 lakh along with her.

The victim has subsequently allayed the allegations of rape against the applicant but the said allegations are false as there is no medical corroboration of the incident.

The victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 16 years old as per the ossification test report, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side.

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit dated 18.3.2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.