High Court · 2025

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 16.10.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned A.G.A. from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of interim bail:

1. The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 15 years of age in the FIR only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contests the age of the victim set out in the prosecution case in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) on the following grounds: (i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents. (ii) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her an advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records. The school records disclosing her age as 15 years are unreliable. (iii) The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 15 years of age. (iv) Medico-legal examination (not the age determination test) records that the victim is 15 years of age. (v) No medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the latest scientific criteria and medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was got done by the prosecution as it would establish the majority of the victim and falsify the prosecution case. The victim is in fact a major. (vi) The failure to conduct the medical examination is in the teeth of law laid down by this Court in Anurudh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4880 of 2024)

3. The applicant and the victim were known to each other.

4. The criminal proceedings are result of the falling out of the said relationship.

5. The FIR was lodged by the victim. After the incident the victim declined to undergo medical examination as it would have contradicted the prosecution case.

6. The FIR does not identify the applicant as the principal offender who committed rape with the victim.

7. Similarly, no allegation of commission of rape or forceful assault by the applicant with the victim has been made in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

8. False and aggravated allegations were made by the victim in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the instigation of inimical parties and to falsely frame the applicant in the instant case.

9. Material inconsistencies in the FIR, the statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.

10. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

11. The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence.

12. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no signs of an early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.

13. The prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant.

14. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence. The rights of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated.

15. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

16. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of her influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In this wake, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on interim bail. Let the applicant- Sunil @ VishvPratap Singh Bhadouriya be released on interim 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Vandit VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 16.10.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned A.G.A. from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of interim bail:

1. The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 15 years of age in the FIR only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contests the age of the victim set out in the prosecution case in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) on the following grounds: (i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents. (ii) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her an advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records. The school records disclosing her age as 15 years are unreliable. (iii) The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 15 years of age. (iv) Medico-legal examination (not the age determination test) records that the victim is 15 years of age. (v) No medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the latest scientific criteria and medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was got done by the prosecution as it would establish the majority of the victim and falsify the prosecution case. The victim is in fact a major. (vi) The failure to conduct the medical examination is in the teeth of law laid down by this Court in Anurudh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4880 of 2024)

3. The applicant and the victim were known to each other.

4. The criminal proceedings are result of the falling out of the said relationship.

5. The FIR was lodged by the victim. After the incident the victim declined to undergo medical examination as it would have contradicted the prosecution case.

6. The FIR does not identify the applicant as the principal offender who committed rape with the victim.

7. Similarly, no allegation of commission of rape or forceful assault by the applicant with the victim has been made in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

8. False and aggravated allegations were made by the victim in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the instigation of inimical parties and to falsely frame the applicant in the instant case.

9. Material inconsistencies in the FIR, the statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.

10. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

11. The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence.

12. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no signs of an early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.

13. The prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant.

14. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence. The rights of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated.

15. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

16. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of her influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In this wake, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on interim bail. Let the applicant- Sunil @ VishvPratap Singh Bhadouriya be released on interim 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Vandit VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad