High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123452 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25433 of 2025 Applicant :- Guru Charan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Sharma,Rupesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 19.07.2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.38 of 2025, under Sections 70(2), 115(2) B.N.S. and 5g/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. 5. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12269 of 2025 and the following order was passed:- "1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kshitij Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 11.04.2025. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.38 of 2025, under Sections 70(2), 115(2) B.N.S. and Section 5g/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. PROSECUTION STORY: 5. The daughter of the informant was found missing from the house as she had left for passing out in the night of 10/11.02.2025 at about 10:30 p.m. After sometime, the family members went to search her and heard her shrieks from the nearby agricultural field, whereby the informant and his wife alongwith his brother-in-law Jitendra rushed there and saw the applicant and co-accused persons, namely, Ravi Kumar and Shivam, at the said place and found the victim topsy turvy. 6. On seeing the informant and his family members, the applicant and co- accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence in the night of 11.02.2025 at about 00:30 hours. RIVAL CONTENTIONS: (Arguments on behalf of applicant) 7. The FIR is delayed by more than 6 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no proper corroboration of the incident. 8. There are ample contradictions in the statement of the victim as in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she has stated that the applicant and co-accused persons had run away from the place of occurrence, while in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she has categorically stated that her family members had caught hold of co-accused persons, namely, Ravi Kumar and Shivam, and the applicant ran away from the place of occurrence. 9. The main accused person Ravi Kumar, who has been assigned the role of raping the victim is minor and the applicant is a married person aged about 35 years. 10. The medical examination of the victim was conducted and no live or dead spermatozoa was observed in the said FSL report prepared from the vaginal smear. 11. The site plan of the place of occurrence indicates that the place of occurrence was about 50 steps away from the house of the victim, while it is stated by the witnesses that she had gone about 10-20 steps away only, as such, the said statement also stands contradicted from the site plan. 12. The age of the victim is also self contradictory. As per her statement, she is 16 years old, but transfer certificate of Class-VIIIth indicates her date of birth to be 10.07.2007, as such, she was about 17 years, 7 months and 8 days old. As per Aadhar Card, her date of birth is 13.07.2004, as such, she was 20 years, 6 months and 26 days old only and was major. 13. The role assigned to the applicant is that of having caught hold of the victim only. No role of raping the victim has been assigned to the applicant. 14. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.02.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. (Arguments on behalf of opposite party/State) 15. The applicant is named in the FIR and the FIR is prompt instituted within 6 hours of the incident. 16. The victim has sustained injuries on her vital part, which is but evident from the injury report. Even bleeding and injury was observed by the doctor on her private part. 17. The applicant had caught hold of the victim and the co-accused person Ravi Kumar had committed rape with her, which falls within the category of gang-rape, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the FIR was prompt instituted after about 6 hours coupled with the fact that the victim has sustained injuries on her vital part, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 19. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, PW- 1/informant and PW-2/victim have been examined during trial and they have completely resiled from their earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that PW-1/informant and PW-2/victim have turned hostile, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Guru Charan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad