Sanjay v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Maurya, 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 25.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51535 of 2023 (Sanjay Vs. State of U.P.).

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal the applicant- Sanjay, seeking Procedure has been enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 293 of 2023 and Session Trial No. 944 of 2023, under Sections 376- D, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly. filed by

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim has been examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court who in her cross- examination has stated that the applicant cannot perform his regular and daily routine work without assistance and thus the fact that the applicant is a handicapped person from both the lower limbs to the extent of 70% would go to show that the prosecution story of his being involved in the matter is a falsity. It is further submitted while placing supplementary affidavit dated 14.07.2025 that the statement of Sohan Pal has been recorded as P.W.-2 and Amar Pal as P.W.-3 2 BAIL No. 25077 of 2024 before the trial court who have also stated regarding the applicant being handicapped. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant in the present matter is without any credible evidence. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 29 and is in jail since 09.06.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim and the two witnesses examined in the trial have supported the prosecution case and have named the applicant. The victim has specifically named the applicant and has levelled allegations against him. It is submitted that the applicant will have a chance in the trial to show his defence at the appropriate stage. It is submitted that there is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2024, the same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri M.P. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Sanjay, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 293 of 2023, under Sections 376(D), 506 I.P.C., Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly.

3. The first information report of the present case was lodged on 08.06.2023 by the victim herself against Sumitpal and the applicant alleging therein that on 08.06.2023 the accused persons called her for reading prayer of Bhagwat and took her on a motorcycle. They took her near in a field where she was taken in sugarcane field and the applicant committed rape upon her. Sumit was standing at guard at that moment and he also stated of committing rape upon her but she started shout on which people of nearby came there. Police of Dial 112 was called by someone.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim is a major girl aged about 23 years as disclosed by her in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the present case is a case of consent. It is argued that the applicant is a handicapped person certified to be having handicap of both lower limbs 70%. It is argued that the present case has been reported as during the incident other alleged persons who are witnesses came there and then under pressure the first information report has been lodged. It is argued that co-accused Sumitpal has been granted bail 3 BAIL No. 25077 of 2024 by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38975 of 2023, the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 and is in jail since 09.06.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the person who has been alleged to have committed rape upon the victim. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication. It is further argued that the story regarding rape is consistent throughout. It is next argued that in so far as co-accused Sumitpal is concerned, his case was distinguishable with that of the applicant as he was standing at guard when the applicant was committing rape. It is argued that as such the bail of the applicant be rejected.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and also in the statement of the victim / first informant during investigation. There is an allegation of rape upon the victim by the applicant. There is no reason for false implication. The case of co-accused Sumitpal is distinguishable with that of the applicant.

7. 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."

8. The appreciation of the statement of witnesses in a bail application cannot be done. The victim while being examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court has supported the prosecution case. Two other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. The applicant will have a chance to claim his defence at the appropriate stage.

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 7, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Maurya, 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 25.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51535 of 2023 (Sanjay Vs. State of U.P.).

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal the applicant- Sanjay, seeking Procedure has been enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 293 of 2023 and Session Trial No. 944 of 2023, under Sections 376- D, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly. filed by

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim has been examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court who in her cross- examination has stated that the applicant cannot perform his regular and daily routine work without assistance and thus the fact that the applicant is a handicapped person from both the lower limbs to the extent of 70% would go to show that the prosecution story of his being involved in the matter is a falsity. It is further submitted while placing supplementary affidavit dated 14.07.2025 that the statement of Sohan Pal has been recorded as P.W.-2 and Amar Pal as P.W.-3 2 BAIL No. 25077 of 2024 before the trial court who have also stated regarding the applicant being handicapped. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant in the present matter is without any credible evidence. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 29 and is in jail since 09.06.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim and the two witnesses examined in the trial have supported the prosecution case and have named the applicant. The victim has specifically named the applicant and has levelled allegations against him. It is submitted that the applicant will have a chance in the trial to show his defence at the appropriate stage. It is submitted that there is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2024, the same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri M.P. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Sanjay, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 293 of 2023, under Sections 376(D), 506 I.P.C., Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly.

3. The first information report of the present case was lodged on 08.06.2023 by the victim herself against Sumitpal and the applicant alleging therein that on 08.06.2023 the accused persons called her for reading prayer of Bhagwat and took her on a motorcycle. They took her near in a field where she was taken in sugarcane field and the applicant committed rape upon her. Sumit was standing at guard at that moment and he also stated of committing rape upon her but she started shout on which people of nearby came there. Police of Dial 112 was called by someone.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim is a major girl aged about 23 years as disclosed by her in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the present case is a case of consent. It is argued that the applicant is a handicapped person certified to be having handicap of both lower limbs 70%. It is argued that the present case has been reported as during the incident other alleged persons who are witnesses came there and then under pressure the first information report has been lodged. It is argued that co-accused Sumitpal has been granted bail 3 BAIL No. 25077 of 2024 by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38975 of 2023, the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 and is in jail since 09.06.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the person who has been alleged to have committed rape upon the victim. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication. It is further argued that the story regarding rape is consistent throughout. It is next argued that in so far as co-accused Sumitpal is concerned, his case was distinguishable with that of the applicant as he was standing at guard when the applicant was committing rape. It is argued that as such the bail of the applicant be rejected.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and also in the statement of the victim / first informant during investigation. There is an allegation of rape upon the victim by the applicant. There is no reason for false implication. The case of co-accused Sumitpal is distinguishable with that of the applicant.

7. 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."

8. The appreciation of the statement of witnesses in a bail application cannot be done. The victim while being examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court has supported the prosecution case. Two other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. The applicant will have a chance to claim his defence at the appropriate stage.

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 7, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad