High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Shiv @ Shivam Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- K.K.Rao,Pradeep Kumar Srinette,Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Sri Bhaju Ram Prasad, learned counsel for the first informant is today again not present.

4. The record shows that even previously on 10.2.2025 the learned counsel for the first informant was not present and in the circumstances the Court proceeds further.

5. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant Shiv @ Shivam Chaudhary with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this 2nd bail application and release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0376 of 2021, under sections 376, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nichlaul, District-Maharajganj during and until the pendency of this trial in the court below."

6. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 20.6.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45166 of 2021.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter has started, in which two witnesses namely, Vimla Devi the first informant was examined as PW1 and the victim/prosecutrix has been examined as PW2. The copies of the said statements have been placed before the Court, which are from page no. 31 to 39 of the supplementary affidavit dated 14.10.2024 filed on behalf of applicant. While placing the said statements learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are serious contradictions in the version given by the witnesses in their statements and as such placing reliance on the same would not be in the interest of justice. While placing the statement of PW2 and drawing the attention of the Court to the cross-examination it is submitted that the first information report was lodged after one month of the incident, which runs totally indifference to the version given in the F.I.R. since there is a case that the incident was of six months old and as such the prosecution story is not truthful and looking to the same the implication of the applicant in the present case is totally false and the present bail application be allowed. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.9.2021.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on merits, vide order dated 20.6.2022. He submits that the trial in the present matter is going on, in which the informant has been examined as PW1 and the victim/prosecutrix has been examined as PW2 and both the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. In so far as the contradictions are concerned, the same shall be the subject matter for the trial court to appreciate at the appropriate stage. It is further submitted that since both the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and have named the applicant and as such the present bail application be dismissed.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 20.6.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45166 of 2021. The said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shiv@Shivam Chaudhary, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 376 of 2021, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the F.I.R. was lodged on 27.9.2021 alleging therein that the applicant had committed rape upon the prosecutrix around six months back and she is carrying a pregnancy of six months. The incident had occurred when the prosecutrix had gone to attend the wedding in the house of her maternal uncle. It is argued that the prosecution case is false and incorrect. It is argued that the prosecutrix is aged about 22 years. It is further argued that marriage in the house of maternal uncle of the prosecutrix was solemnized on 08.12.2020 and as such the story of the applicant committing rape upon her and establishing physical relationship with her on false pretext of marriage is a falsity. It is argued that the applicant has criminal history of two cases which has been disclosed and explained in para-13 of the rejoinder affidavit in which in one of the case he has been granted bail by the concerned court below and in the other case, he was externed by the order of the concerned authority and the same has lived its life. The applicant is in jail since 30.9.2021. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him in the F.I.R., in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that as per the F.I.R. the prosuectrix is carrying a pregnancy of six months. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There are allegations against him of committing rape upon the prosecutrix. Previously the applicant is involve in a case under Sections 354A, 354B I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act in which the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 27.8.2019 on the condition that he shall not involve in any such case. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence and the criminal antecedents under Sections 354A, 354B I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act and act of the applicant in which he had been externed by the concerned authority, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage."

10. The trial in the matter is going on, in which the first informant has been examined as PW-1 and the victim/prosecutrix has been examined as PW-2. Copies of the statements of the witnesses has been filed as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit. The prosecution case stands fully corroborated by the witnesses who were examined during the trial. More so the appreciation of the said statements is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage in the trial. In so far as the applicant is concerned the witnesses implicated him in the present case and as such no good ground for bail is made out.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

12. However, since there is an argument also regarding the period of detention of the applicant and looking to the fact that the trial is going on, in which two witnesses have been examined and the trial is of the year 2022 and the applicant is the accused, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Faridul (Samit Gopal, J.) FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Shiv @ Shivam Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- K.K.Rao,Pradeep Kumar Srinette,Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Sri Bhaju Ram Prasad, learned counsel for the first informant is today again not present.

4. The record shows that even previously on 10.2.2025 the learned counsel for the first informant was not present and in the circumstances the Court proceeds further.

5. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant Shiv @ Shivam Chaudhary with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this 2nd bail application and release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0376 of 2021, under sections 376, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nichlaul, District-Maharajganj during and until the pendency of this trial in the court below."

6. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 20.6.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45166 of 2021.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter has started, in which two witnesses namely, Vimla Devi the first informant was examined as PW1 and the victim/prosecutrix has been examined as PW2. The copies of the said statements have been placed before the Court, which are from page no. 31 to 39 of the supplementary affidavit dated 14.10.2024 filed on behalf of applicant. While placing the said statements learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are serious contradictions in the version given by the witnesses in their statements and as such placing reliance on the same would not be in the interest of justice. While placing the statement of PW2 and drawing the attention of the Court to the cross-examination it is submitted that the first information report was lodged after one month of the incident, which runs totally indifference to the version given in the F.I.R. since there is a case that the incident was of six months old and as such the prosecution story is not truthful and looking to the same the implication of the applicant in the present case is totally false and the present bail application be allowed. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.9.2021.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on merits, vide order dated 20.6.2022. He submits that the trial in the present matter is going on, in which the informant has been examined as PW1 and the victim/prosecutrix has been examined as PW2 and both the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. In so far as the contradictions are concerned, the same shall be the subject matter for the trial court to appreciate at the appropriate stage. It is further submitted that since both the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and have named the applicant and as such the present bail application be dismissed.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 20.6.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45166 of 2021. The said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shiv@Shivam Chaudhary, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 376 of 2021, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the F.I.R. was lodged on 27.9.2021 alleging therein that the applicant had committed rape upon the prosecutrix around six months back and she is carrying a pregnancy of six months. The incident had occurred when the prosecutrix had gone to attend the wedding in the house of her maternal uncle. It is argued that the prosecution case is false and incorrect. It is argued that the prosecutrix is aged about 22 years. It is further argued that marriage in the house of maternal uncle of the prosecutrix was solemnized on 08.12.2020 and as such the story of the applicant committing rape upon her and establishing physical relationship with her on false pretext of marriage is a falsity. It is argued that the applicant has criminal history of two cases which has been disclosed and explained in para-13 of the rejoinder affidavit in which in one of the case he has been granted bail by the concerned court below and in the other case, he was externed by the order of the concerned authority and the same has lived its life. The applicant is in jail since 30.9.2021. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him in the F.I.R., in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that as per the F.I.R. the prosuectrix is carrying a pregnancy of six months. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There are allegations against him of committing rape upon the prosecutrix. Previously the applicant is involve in a case under Sections 354A, 354B I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act in which the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 27.8.2019 on the condition that he shall not involve in any such case. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence and the criminal antecedents under Sections 354A, 354B I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act and act of the applicant in which he had been externed by the concerned authority, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage."

10. The trial in the matter is going on, in which the first informant has been examined as PW-1 and the victim/prosecutrix has been examined as PW-2. Copies of the statements of the witnesses has been filed as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit. The prosecution case stands fully corroborated by the witnesses who were examined during the trial. More so the appreciation of the said statements is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage in the trial. In so far as the applicant is concerned the witnesses implicated him in the present case and as such no good ground for bail is made out.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

12. However, since there is an argument also regarding the period of detention of the applicant and looking to the fact that the trial is going on, in which two witnesses have been examined and the trial is of the year 2022 and the applicant is the accused, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Faridul (Samit Gopal, J.) FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad