High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kishore Dubey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Umesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 131 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at P.S. Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur.

4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45746 of 2021 was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 21.4.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim was examined before the trial court as P.W.-1 who in her cross-examination has denied the version given before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that implication of the applicant in the present case is false. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 01.6.2021.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 21.4.2022. It is submitted that trial in the matter is going on in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined being the victim as P.W.-1, the first informant/Chhatrapal as P.W.-2, Geeta Devi the mother of the victim as P.W.-3 and Ram Singh the uncle of the victim as P.W.-4 and all the said four witnesses have supported the prosecution case, copy of the same are annexed as annexure no. S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 2.9.2024. It is submitted that the applicant is stated to have committed rape upon the victim. She is a minor.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.4.2022. The same reads as under:- "Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Vide order dated 08.02.2022, notice was issued to the first informant. As per the office report dated 18.04.2022, a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 25.03.2022 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur is on record which states that notice has been served on the first informant through his brother Ram Singh. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the first informant. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Umesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 131 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant has been named in the first information report as an accused and there is an allegation that he has enticed away the daughter of the first informant who is aged about 16 years but the same is false and incorrect. It is argued that the incident in the present case is alleged to have taken place on 06.03.2021 but the first information report was lodged on 09.03.2021 which is after 03 days of the incident for which there is no plausible explanation. It is argued that the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet-will. It is further argued that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated her age to be 17 years and has not indulged in any physical relationship with the applicant. As per the X-Ray examination she has been opined to be about 16 years of age and by giving variation of two years she would be a major. It is argued that the present case is a case of consent. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 and is in jail since 01.06.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 14 years as her date of birth in school records is 20.07.2007 and the incident in question is of 06.03.2021. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report, statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there are allegations against him. It is further argued that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that there was physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix. It is argued that as such the applicant is involved. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that as per the school records and even the X-Ray examination, the prosecutrix is a minor girl. The applicant is named in the first information report, statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The consent of a minor is of no worth. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

8. The trial in the matter is going on in which four prosecution witness have been examined. All the four witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The victim was examined as P.W.- 1, the first informant was examined as P.W.-2, Geeta Devi the mother of the victim was examined as P.W.-3 and Ram Singh the uncle of the victim was examined as P.W.-4 who have supported the prosecution case. There are allegations of the applicant committing rape upon the victim.

9. 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.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kishore Dubey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Umesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 131 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at P.S. Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur.

4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45746 of 2021 was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 21.4.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim was examined before the trial court as P.W.-1 who in her cross-examination has denied the version given before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that implication of the applicant in the present case is false. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 01.6.2021.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 21.4.2022. It is submitted that trial in the matter is going on in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined being the victim as P.W.-1, the first informant/Chhatrapal as P.W.-2, Geeta Devi the mother of the victim as P.W.-3 and Ram Singh the uncle of the victim as P.W.-4 and all the said four witnesses have supported the prosecution case, copy of the same are annexed as annexure no. S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 2.9.2024. It is submitted that the applicant is stated to have committed rape upon the victim. She is a minor.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.4.2022. The same reads as under:- "Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Vide order dated 08.02.2022, notice was issued to the first informant. As per the office report dated 18.04.2022, a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 25.03.2022 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur is on record which states that notice has been served on the first informant through his brother Ram Singh. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the first informant. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Umesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 131 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant has been named in the first information report as an accused and there is an allegation that he has enticed away the daughter of the first informant who is aged about 16 years but the same is false and incorrect. It is argued that the incident in the present case is alleged to have taken place on 06.03.2021 but the first information report was lodged on 09.03.2021 which is after 03 days of the incident for which there is no plausible explanation. It is argued that the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet-will. It is further argued that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated her age to be 17 years and has not indulged in any physical relationship with the applicant. As per the X-Ray examination she has been opined to be about 16 years of age and by giving variation of two years she would be a major. It is argued that the present case is a case of consent. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 and is in jail since 01.06.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 14 years as her date of birth in school records is 20.07.2007 and the incident in question is of 06.03.2021. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report, statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there are allegations against him. It is further argued that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that there was physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix. It is argued that as such the applicant is involved. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that as per the school records and even the X-Ray examination, the prosecutrix is a minor girl. The applicant is named in the first information report, statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The consent of a minor is of no worth. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

8. The trial in the matter is going on in which four prosecution witness have been examined. All the four witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The victim was examined as P.W.- 1, the first informant was examined as P.W.-2, Geeta Devi the mother of the victim was examined as P.W.-3 and Ram Singh the uncle of the victim was examined as P.W.-4 who have supported the prosecution case. There are allegations of the applicant committing rape upon the victim.

9. 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.

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad