Tasleem Shah v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
present fourth application for bail has been served upon first informant/opposite party-4 on 30.07.2025. However, inspite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of first informant/opposite party-4 to oppose this fourth application for bail.
5. Notice in respect of opposite party-2, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad was already served in the office of opposite party-2 before filing the present appeal However, in spite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party-2 to oppose this fourth application for bail even in revised call.
6. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46917 of 2022 (Tasleem Shah Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). Thereafter, applicant filed repeat application for bail, which was alsos rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41583 of 2023 (Taskeen Shah Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others. For ready reference, the order dated 04.12.2023 is reproduced herein under: "1. Heard Mr. Vishwjeet Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shashi Shankar Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Pramod Kumar Maurya, the learned counsel representing first informant.
2. Perused the record.
3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Tasleem Shah seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0289 of 2022 under Section 376 (2) (n) I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 22.22.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46917 of 2022 (Tasleem Shah Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: " Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Maurya, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sajjad Khan, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pramod Kumar Maurya, the learned counsel for first informant opposite party 2. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Tasleem Shah seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 289 of 2022, under Sections 376 (2) (n) IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Record shows that in respect of incidents, which are alleged to have occurred for the last two years, first informant Ajay Kumar Gupta (father of the prosecutrix) lodged an F.I.R. dated 28.6.2022, which was registered as Case Crime No. 289 of 2022, under Sections 376 (2) (n) IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Pipraich, District Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Tasleem has been nominated as solitary named accused. her. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused developed relations with minor daughter of first informant i.e. prosecutrix and thereafter, repeatedly dislodged her modesty by committing After lodging of the aforementioned F.I.R. statutory investigation of the concerned crime number commenced. Investigating Officer examined first informant who has supported the F.I.R. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C., wherein the prosecutrix has not supported the F.I.R. To the contrary, she has stated that she was a willing and consenting party. The prosecutrix was requested for her medical examination. In her statement before the Doctor, the prosecutrix reiterated her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The Doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix did not find any injury on her person or any such sign so as to denote commission of sexual violence. With regard to the private part of the prosecutrix, the Doctor opined as follows:- Hymen Old torn and healed Certain samples were collected from the body of the prosecutrix for pathological examination. However, the supplementary medical report of the prosecutrix has not been brought on record. As per the medical opinion, the prosecutrix was said to be aged about 18 years. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the Principal of the institution from where the prosecutrix passed her Class Xth examination. As per the statement of the Principal, the date of birth of the prosecutrix as recorded in the school record is 18.7.2006. As such on the date of lodging of the F.I.R., prosecutrix was aged about 15 years and 1 month. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of applicant is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 4.8.2022, whereby applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Learned counsel for applicant submits that even though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as such offence alleged against applicant is not established. He has then referred to the statement of the prosecutrix as recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C., before the Doctor, and under Section 164 Cr. P. C. On the basis of above, he submits that prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party and therefore, no criminality as alleged can be said to have been committed by applicant. As per the medical opinion, the prosecutrix is major. No act of kidnapping the prosecutrix was committed by applicant. To the contrary, the prosecutrix herself came to applicant. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 28.6.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 5 1/2 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the present application for bail. They submit that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is then contended that as per the educational record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 18.7.2006. As such, on the date of lodging of F.I.R., prosecutrix was aged about 15 years and 1 month. In view of above, the Consent and willingness of the prosecutrix, if any, is wholly irrelevant. Attention of the Court is invited to the judgement of the Supreme Court in X (Minor) Vs. State of Jharkhand, MANU/SCOR/26579/2022, wherein in almost identical circumstances, the bail granted to the accused was set aside by the Apex Court. On the aforesaid premise, it is, therefore, contended that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, learned counsel for first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that since prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the date of lodging of the F.I.R., her consent and willingness being irrelevant, the provisions contained in Section 6 POCSO Act and the judgement of Supreme Court in X (Minor) Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no ground for bail is made out. As a result, bail application fails and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 22.12.2022 "
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that no charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant. Furthermore, applicant is in jail since 28.06.2022. As such, he has undergone more than one year and five months of incarceration. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
6. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial..
7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. They submit that prosecutrix is a young girl of tender age, aged about 15 years and one month as such the rigours of law laid down by Apex Court in X (Minor) Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 194 are clearly attracted in the present case. According to the learned A.G.A. the charge-sheet has already submitted against applicant on 04.08.2022. The period of incarceration undergone by applicant is by itself not so sufficient so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. They therefore submit that considering the nature and gravity of offence, applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.
8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel for first informant, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that prosecutrix is a young girl of tender age, she was aged about 15 years and one month on the date of occurrence, in view of above, the rigours of law laid down by Apex Court in X (Minor) Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 194 are clearly attracted in the present case, the charge-sheet has already submitted against applicant on 04.08.2022, considering the nature and gravity of offence, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present application for bail, the Court does not finds any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
10. As a result, the repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
11. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 4.12.2023 "
7. Thereafter, applicant preferred his third application for bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8803 of 2025 (Tasleem Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). The order dated 12.05.2025 is accordingly reproduced herein below: "Case called out in revise list. No one appears on behalf of applicant to press this application. Learned A.G.A. for State is present. As no one appears on behalf of applicant to press this application, it is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 "
8. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the prosecutrix has deposed before court below as P.W.-2 whereas the first informant has deposed before court below as P.W.-1. However, the prosecutrix in her deposition before court below has not supported the F.I.R. Even though, the prosecutrix has not been declared hostile by court below but since the prosecutrix has not supported the F.I.R., therefore, on date no good or sufficient ground now exists so as to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that once the statements of the prosecutirx as well as the first informant have already been recorded before court below then in that eventuality it cannot be said that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
9. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 28.06.2022. As such, he has undergone more than two years and one month of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Furthermore, the depositions of first informant and the prosecutrix stand recorded before court below. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that in view of above, no good or sufficient ground now exits so as to continue the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail in then in that eventuality, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed this fourth application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since the applicant is named as well as charge sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court at this stage. Learned A.G.A. has then pointed out that as per the High School Certificate of the prosecutrix, the date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded therein is
18.07.2006. The F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings has been lodged on 28.06.2022. As such, on the date of lodging of the F.IR.., the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years and 11 months. As such, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence. In view of above, even if there is any consent of the prosecutrix, which is immaterial as consent of a child is no consent in the eyes of law. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. thus concludes that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.
11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant this court finds that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this fourth application for bail are not only borne out from record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. Therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present fourth application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.
13. As a result, present fourth application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
14. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
present fourth application for bail has been served upon first informant/opposite party-4 on 30.07.2025. However, inspite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of first informant/opposite party-4 to oppose this fourth application for bail.
5. Notice in respect of opposite party-2, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad was already served in the office of opposite party-2 before filing the present appeal However, in spite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party-2 to oppose this fourth application for bail even in revised call.
6. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46917 of 2022 (Tasleem Shah Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). Thereafter, applicant filed repeat application for bail, which was alsos rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41583 of 2023 (Taskeen Shah Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others. For ready reference, the order dated 04.12.2023 is reproduced herein under: "1. Heard Mr. Vishwjeet Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shashi Shankar Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Pramod Kumar Maurya, the learned counsel representing first informant.
2. Perused the record.
3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Tasleem Shah seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0289 of 2022 under Section 376 (2) (n) I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 22.22.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46917 of 2022 (Tasleem Shah Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: " Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Maurya, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sajjad Khan, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pramod Kumar Maurya, the learned counsel for first informant opposite party 2. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Tasleem Shah seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 289 of 2022, under Sections 376 (2) (n) IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Record shows that in respect of incidents, which are alleged to have occurred for the last two years, first informant Ajay Kumar Gupta (father of the prosecutrix) lodged an F.I.R. dated 28.6.2022, which was registered as Case Crime No. 289 of 2022, under Sections 376 (2) (n) IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Pipraich, District Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Tasleem has been nominated as solitary named accused. her. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused developed relations with minor daughter of first informant i.e. prosecutrix and thereafter, repeatedly dislodged her modesty by committing After lodging of the aforementioned F.I.R. statutory investigation of the concerned crime number commenced. Investigating Officer examined first informant who has supported the F.I.R. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C., wherein the prosecutrix has not supported the F.I.R. To the contrary, she has stated that she was a willing and consenting party. The prosecutrix was requested for her medical examination. In her statement before the Doctor, the prosecutrix reiterated her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The Doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix did not find any injury on her person or any such sign so as to denote commission of sexual violence. With regard to the private part of the prosecutrix, the Doctor opined as follows:- Hymen Old torn and healed Certain samples were collected from the body of the prosecutrix for pathological examination. However, the supplementary medical report of the prosecutrix has not been brought on record. As per the medical opinion, the prosecutrix was said to be aged about 18 years. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the Principal of the institution from where the prosecutrix passed her Class Xth examination. As per the statement of the Principal, the date of birth of the prosecutrix as recorded in the school record is 18.7.2006. As such on the date of lodging of the F.I.R., prosecutrix was aged about 15 years and 1 month. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of applicant is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 4.8.2022, whereby applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Learned counsel for applicant submits that even though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as such offence alleged against applicant is not established. He has then referred to the statement of the prosecutrix as recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C., before the Doctor, and under Section 164 Cr. P. C. On the basis of above, he submits that prosecutrix is a willing and consenting party and therefore, no criminality as alleged can be said to have been committed by applicant. As per the medical opinion, the prosecutrix is major. No act of kidnapping the prosecutrix was committed by applicant. To the contrary, the prosecutrix herself came to applicant. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 28.6.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 5 1/2 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the present application for bail. They submit that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is then contended that as per the educational record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 18.7.2006. As such, on the date of lodging of F.I.R., prosecutrix was aged about 15 years and 1 month. In view of above, the Consent and willingness of the prosecutrix, if any, is wholly irrelevant. Attention of the Court is invited to the judgement of the Supreme Court in X (Minor) Vs. State of Jharkhand, MANU/SCOR/26579/2022, wherein in almost identical circumstances, the bail granted to the accused was set aside by the Apex Court. On the aforesaid premise, it is, therefore, contended that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, learned counsel for first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that since prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the date of lodging of the F.I.R., her consent and willingness being irrelevant, the provisions contained in Section 6 POCSO Act and the judgement of Supreme Court in X (Minor) Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no ground for bail is made out. As a result, bail application fails and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 22.12.2022 "
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that no charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant. Furthermore, applicant is in jail since 28.06.2022. As such, he has undergone more than one year and five months of incarceration. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
6. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial..
7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. They submit that prosecutrix is a young girl of tender age, aged about 15 years and one month as such the rigours of law laid down by Apex Court in X (Minor) Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 194 are clearly attracted in the present case. According to the learned A.G.A. the charge-sheet has already submitted against applicant on 04.08.2022. The period of incarceration undergone by applicant is by itself not so sufficient so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. They therefore submit that considering the nature and gravity of offence, applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.
8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel for first informant, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that prosecutrix is a young girl of tender age, she was aged about 15 years and one month on the date of occurrence, in view of above, the rigours of law laid down by Apex Court in X (Minor) Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 194 are clearly attracted in the present case, the charge-sheet has already submitted against applicant on 04.08.2022, considering the nature and gravity of offence, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present application for bail, the Court does not finds any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
10. As a result, the repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
11. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 4.12.2023 "
7. Thereafter, applicant preferred his third application for bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8803 of 2025 (Tasleem Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). The order dated 12.05.2025 is accordingly reproduced herein below: "Case called out in revise list. No one appears on behalf of applicant to press this application. Learned A.G.A. for State is present. As no one appears on behalf of applicant to press this application, it is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 "
8. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the prosecutrix has deposed before court below as P.W.-2 whereas the first informant has deposed before court below as P.W.-1. However, the prosecutrix in her deposition before court below has not supported the F.I.R. Even though, the prosecutrix has not been declared hostile by court below but since the prosecutrix has not supported the F.I.R., therefore, on date no good or sufficient ground now exists so as to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that once the statements of the prosecutirx as well as the first informant have already been recorded before court below then in that eventuality it cannot be said that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
9. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 28.06.2022. As such, he has undergone more than two years and one month of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Furthermore, the depositions of first informant and the prosecutrix stand recorded before court below. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that in view of above, no good or sufficient ground now exits so as to continue the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail in then in that eventuality, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed this fourth application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since the applicant is named as well as charge sheeted accused and also facing trial before court below, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court at this stage. Learned A.G.A. has then pointed out that as per the High School Certificate of the prosecutrix, the date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded therein is
18.07.2006. The F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings has been lodged on 28.06.2022. As such, on the date of lodging of the F.IR.., the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years and 11 months. As such, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence. In view of above, even if there is any consent of the prosecutrix, which is immaterial as consent of a child is no consent in the eyes of law. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. thus concludes that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.
11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant this court finds that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this fourth application for bail are not only borne out from record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. Therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present fourth application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.
13. As a result, present fourth application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
14. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 YK YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad