Chandresh Alias Bhaiyawa v. Party

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant- accused involved in Case Crime No.244 of 2023, under Sections 354, 302, 201 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. The first bail application of applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2024, which is reproduced as below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned counsel for the first informant, Smt. Babita Upadhayay, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused involved in Case Crime No.244 of 2023, under Sections 354, 302, 201 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the first information report. The informant has lodged first information report on 27.10.2023, alleging that on 26.10.2023 his daughter has gone for grazing goats and after that she has gone missing and on next day her dead-body was found. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of alleged incident. The involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of information from some informer but there is no eye witness and that there is no evidence that applicant has committed murder of deceased. The alleged statement of Sonu that applicant was seen following the victim, is wholly false. It was further submitted that applicant-accused is languishing in jail since 28.10.2023, having no criminal history, and that in case the applicant-accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial. 2 BAIL No. 31072 of 2025

4. Learned A.G.A. for State, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the case relates to murder of a 14 years old girl. Before incident also the applicant has harassed the deceased. Referring to statement of Sonu, it was pointed out that deceased was 'last seen' while she was taking her goats and applicant was also following her and on next day, her dead-body was recovered.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant-accused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant-accused is hereby rejected."

5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the first information report and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis that he was seen following the deceased girl. There is no such evidence that deceased was 'last seen' with applicant. After rejection of first bail application of applicant, statement of informant/ PW-1 Babu Lal and statement of PW-2 Somnath have been recorded before the trial Court. Learned counsel has referred statement of said witnesses recorded before the trial Court and submitted that they are not eye-witness of the incident and that PW-1 did not disclose the name of the person, who has told him about the involvement of the accused-appellant in the incident. There is no credible evidence regarding earlier incident of molestation of victim girl and PW-2 has accepted that before the incident applicant has not outraged the modesty of victim. It was submitted that after examination of PWs-1 & 2, several dates have been fixed for evidence but no witness have turned up. Statement of alleged witness Sonu, who has allegedly claimed to have seen the applicant following the deceased girl, is wholly unreliable. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that case relates to murder of a 14 years old girl. As per statement of one Sonu, deceased was lastly seen while she was taking her goats and applicant was seen following her and that on the next day, her dead body was found. It was submitted that said Sonu is an important witness and his statement is yet to be recorded before the trial Court.

7. Perusal of record shows that case relates to murder of a 14 years old girl, however there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. Statement of witness Sonu, who has claimed to have seen the applicant following the deceased before the incident, is yet to be recorded before the trial Court. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of 3 BAIL No. 31072 of 2025 the matter, no case for bail is made out at this stage.

8. In view of aforesaid facts, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to record the statement of witness Sonu as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, if there is no other legal impediment.

9. The applicant would be at liberty to file a fresh bail application after examination of said witness Sonu before the trial Court or after a period of five months from today.

10. With aforesaid observations, the instant second bail application is hereby rejected.

11. A copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary compliance. October 17, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant- accused involved in Case Crime No.244 of 2023, under Sections 354, 302, 201 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. The first bail application of applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2024, which is reproduced as below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned counsel for the first informant, Smt. Babita Upadhayay, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused involved in Case Crime No.244 of 2023, under Sections 354, 302, 201 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the first information report. The informant has lodged first information report on 27.10.2023, alleging that on 26.10.2023 his daughter has gone for grazing goats and after that she has gone missing and on next day her dead-body was found. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of alleged incident. The involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of information from some informer but there is no eye witness and that there is no evidence that applicant has committed murder of deceased. The alleged statement of Sonu that applicant was seen following the victim, is wholly false. It was further submitted that applicant-accused is languishing in jail since 28.10.2023, having no criminal history, and that in case the applicant-accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial. 2 BAIL No. 31072 of 2025

4. Learned A.G.A. for State, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the case relates to murder of a 14 years old girl. Before incident also the applicant has harassed the deceased. Referring to statement of Sonu, it was pointed out that deceased was 'last seen' while she was taking her goats and applicant was also following her and on next day, her dead-body was recovered.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant-accused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant-accused is hereby rejected."

5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the first information report and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis that he was seen following the deceased girl. There is no such evidence that deceased was 'last seen' with applicant. After rejection of first bail application of applicant, statement of informant/ PW-1 Babu Lal and statement of PW-2 Somnath have been recorded before the trial Court. Learned counsel has referred statement of said witnesses recorded before the trial Court and submitted that they are not eye-witness of the incident and that PW-1 did not disclose the name of the person, who has told him about the involvement of the accused-appellant in the incident. There is no credible evidence regarding earlier incident of molestation of victim girl and PW-2 has accepted that before the incident applicant has not outraged the modesty of victim. It was submitted that after examination of PWs-1 & 2, several dates have been fixed for evidence but no witness have turned up. Statement of alleged witness Sonu, who has allegedly claimed to have seen the applicant following the deceased girl, is wholly unreliable. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that case relates to murder of a 14 years old girl. As per statement of one Sonu, deceased was lastly seen while she was taking her goats and applicant was seen following her and that on the next day, her dead body was found. It was submitted that said Sonu is an important witness and his statement is yet to be recorded before the trial Court.

7. Perusal of record shows that case relates to murder of a 14 years old girl, however there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. Statement of witness Sonu, who has claimed to have seen the applicant following the deceased before the incident, is yet to be recorded before the trial Court. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of 3 BAIL No. 31072 of 2025 the matter, no case for bail is made out at this stage.

8. In view of aforesaid facts, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to record the statement of witness Sonu as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, if there is no other legal impediment.

9. The applicant would be at liberty to file a fresh bail application after examination of said witness Sonu before the trial Court or after a period of five months from today.

10. With aforesaid observations, the instant second bail application is hereby rejected.

11. A copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary compliance. October 17, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad