Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. and

2. Heard Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45642 of 2023 (Anuj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others).

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anuj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 294 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Phaphund, District Auraiya. .

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing supplementary affidavit dated 26.08.2025 it is submitted that the victim has been examined as P.W.-1 and Pradeep Kumar the father of the victim has been examined as P.W.-2 before the trial court. Learned counsel has placed the statement of the victim and submitted that the victim at places stated that she is aged about 18 years and thus was a major. It is submitted that the present case is a case of false implication. It is submitted that in the trial only two witnesses have been examined till date and there is an inordinate delay in the trial. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 and is in jail since 22.08.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected by 2 BAIL No. 9863 of 2024 this Court on merits. It is submitted that the victim is a minor girl. It is submitted that the trial is under progress in which two witnesses have been examined amongst whom the victim has been examined as P.W.-1 who has supported the prosecution case and as such the implication of the applicant is there in the present matter. It is submitted that the prayer for bail thus be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

09.11.2023, the same reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Surendra Pratap Singh, 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 Anuj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 294 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Phaphund, District Auraiya.

4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 19.8.2023 by the victim herself against the applicant stating therein that on 19.8.2023 at about 3.30 p.m. she had gone to the fields to cut fodder where after sometime, the applicant came and caught hold of her from behind and forcibly pulled her inside fodder fields and committed rape on her. When she raised a shout, her father reached there and identified the applicant and caught hold of him after which he assaulted her father due to which her father received injuries. She is aged about 18 years.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village enmity, para-14 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. It is argued that medical examination report does not support the prosecution case. It is further argued that the victim has stated her age to be 18 years in the F.I.R. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since

22.8.2023.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. argued that during investigation the father of the victim was medically examined who was found to have received injuries on his person and even the victim was also found to have received contusion at left side back near scapula. It is argued that there is no reason for the applicant to be falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is named in the F.I.R., the statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and there are allegations against him. It is further argued that as per school records the victim is a minor and even also as per supplementary medical report she is opined probably to be below 18 years in age and as such 3 BAIL No. 9863 of 2024 she is a minor.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that that the victim is a minor girl. Her father is alleged to have received injuries while apprehended the applicant. The victim was also medically examined who has also received injuries. There is no reason coming forward for false implication of the applicant.

8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. "

8. The trial is under progress in which the victim has been examined as P.W.- 1 and her father has been examined as P.W.-2 and both the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. There is no new & fresh ground.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. October 8, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45642 of 2023 (Anuj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others).

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anuj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 294 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Phaphund, District Auraiya. .

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing supplementary affidavit dated 26.08.2025 it is submitted that the victim has been examined as P.W.-1 and Pradeep Kumar the father of the victim has been examined as P.W.-2 before the trial court. Learned counsel has placed the statement of the victim and submitted that the victim at places stated that she is aged about 18 years and thus was a major. It is submitted that the present case is a case of false implication. It is submitted that in the trial only two witnesses have been examined till date and there is an inordinate delay in the trial. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 and is in jail since 22.08.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected by 2 BAIL No. 9863 of 2024 this Court on merits. It is submitted that the victim is a minor girl. It is submitted that the trial is under progress in which two witnesses have been examined amongst whom the victim has been examined as P.W.-1 who has supported the prosecution case and as such the implication of the applicant is there in the present matter. It is submitted that the prayer for bail thus be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

09.11.2023, the same reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Surendra Pratap Singh, 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 Anuj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 294 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Phaphund, District Auraiya.

4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 19.8.2023 by the victim herself against the applicant stating therein that on 19.8.2023 at about 3.30 p.m. she had gone to the fields to cut fodder where after sometime, the applicant came and caught hold of her from behind and forcibly pulled her inside fodder fields and committed rape on her. When she raised a shout, her father reached there and identified the applicant and caught hold of him after which he assaulted her father due to which her father received injuries. She is aged about 18 years.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village enmity, para-14 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. It is argued that medical examination report does not support the prosecution case. It is further argued that the victim has stated her age to be 18 years in the F.I.R. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since

22.8.2023.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. argued that during investigation the father of the victim was medically examined who was found to have received injuries on his person and even the victim was also found to have received contusion at left side back near scapula. It is argued that there is no reason for the applicant to be falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is named in the F.I.R., the statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and there are allegations against him. It is further argued that as per school records the victim is a minor and even also as per supplementary medical report she is opined probably to be below 18 years in age and as such 3 BAIL No. 9863 of 2024 she is a minor.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that that the victim is a minor girl. Her father is alleged to have received injuries while apprehended the applicant. The victim was also medically examined who has also received injuries. There is no reason coming forward for false implication of the applicant.

8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. "

8. The trial is under progress in which the victim has been examined as P.W.- 1 and her father has been examined as P.W.-2 and both the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. There is no new & fresh ground.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. October 8, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad