High Court · 2025

1.Heard Sri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record.

2.As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Anuj Gupta @ Shani) is languishing in jail since 23.06.2025 in Case Crime No.0794 of 2024, under Sections 70 (1), 115 (2), 140 (1) & 191 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-PGI, District-Lucknow.

3.Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4.Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) which was lodged on 30.11.2024 for the incident dated 23.11.2024 without explaining the inordinate delay. The specific allegation of gang rape has been levelled against the accused persons, namely, Kishan Yadav, Vivek Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav, Dharmendra Yadav, Ranjit Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Shani. As per FIR as well as statement of victim recorded under section 180 & 183 B.N.S.S., only this much has been indicated that in the vehicle i.e. Swift Dezire, which was used to kidnap her, alongwith co-accused persons the present applicant was also present.

5.During medico-legal examination, the informant told the Doctor that eight assailants had committed gang-rape against her. However, she stated that her genital areas had been forcibly washed off and her mouth had also been forcibly washed off. No obvious injury was found on the genitals of the informant. The informant did not give consent for detection of internal injuries. Although vaginal swab and other samples were collected for pathological examination but there is no mention of any findings in the pathological report which might support the allegation of commission of gang-rape.

6.Sri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases of the present applicant in para-42 of the bail application, wherein the present applicant has been granted bail (Annexure No.14). Further, attention has been drawn towards Annexure Nos.15 to 21 of the bail application, which are the bail orders of the co-accused Seema Devi, dated 24.02.2025 passed in Bail Application No.1689 of 2025, co-accused Ranjeet Yadav, dated 04.04.2025 passed in Bail Application No.2846 of 2025, co-accused Sunil Yadav @ Jeda, dated 10.04.2025 passed in Bail Application No.3045 of 2025, co-accused Akhilesh @ Akhilesh Yadav, dated 16.05.2025 passed in Bail Application No.4248 of 2025, co-accused Kishan Yadav, dated 21.05.2025 passed in Bail Application No.4423 of 2025, co-accused, Dharmendra Yadav, dated 21.05.2025 passed in Bail Application No.4427 of 2025 and the co-accused Vivek Yadav, dated 27.05.2025 passed in Bail Application No.4545 of 2025. Therefore, Sri Sharma has stated that on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. The charge-sheet has been filed. He undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.

7.Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that the culpability of the present applicant in the commission of offence along with other co-accused persons has been found, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, however, the direction may be issued to expedite the trial.

8.Sri Tripathi has further submitted that all the co-accused persons are dreadened criminal and the manner under which the gang rape with the victim has been committed shows their courage and fearless character against the land of law, therefore, all the aforesaid accused persons must be languished in jail. The present applicant is a resident of Delhi and the Pairokar, who has filed this bail application is not a family member of the present applicant, but is one of his friend, and is resident of State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, if the present applicant is released on bail, he may try to abscond from judicial proceedings. Therefore, Sri Tripathi has submitted that if this Hon'ble Court grant bail on the basis of principles of parity, any strict condition may be imposed upon the present applicant in the interest of prosecution. The same submission has been reiterated by Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate.

9.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that there is unexplained delay in lodging the impugned F.I.R. inasmuch as the impugned F.I.R. was lodged on 30.11.2024 for the incident dated 23.11.2024; the specific allegation of gang rape has been levelled against the accused persons, namely, Kishan Yadav, Vivek Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav, Dharmendra Yadav, Ranjit Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Shani, who have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.02.2025, 04.04.2025, 10.04.2025, 16.05.2025, 21.05.2025 & 27.05.2025 (supra); the charge-sheet has been filed; the criminal history registered against the present applicant he has been granted bail (Annexure No.14) and the undertaking that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.

10.Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

11.Let the applicant (Anuj Gupta @ Shani) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each, out of two sureties the applicant shall file one local surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv)The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (v)The applicant after release from jail shall not meet the prosecutrix or her family members, failing which, any appropriate application for cancellation of bail may be filed by the State or by the informant.

12.Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded on day-to-day basis with expedition in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial proceedings properly. . Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Sri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record.

2.As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Anuj Gupta @ Shani) is languishing in jail since 23.06.2025 in Case Crime No.0794 of 2024, under Sections 70 (1), 115 (2), 140 (1) & 191 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-PGI, District-Lucknow.

3.Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4.Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) which was lodged on 30.11.2024 for the incident dated 23.11.2024 without explaining the inordinate delay. The specific allegation of gang rape has been levelled against the accused persons, namely, Kishan Yadav, Vivek Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav, Dharmendra Yadav, Ranjit Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Shani. As per FIR as well as statement of victim recorded under section 180 & 183 B.N.S.S., only this much has been indicated that in the vehicle i.e. Swift Dezire, which was used to kidnap her, alongwith co-accused persons the present applicant was also present.

5.During medico-legal examination, the informant told the Doctor that eight assailants had committed gang-rape against her. However, she stated that her genital areas had been forcibly washed off and her mouth had also been forcibly washed off. No obvious injury was found on the genitals of the informant. The informant did not give consent for detection of internal injuries. Although vaginal swab and other samples were collected for pathological examination but there is no mention of any findings in the pathological report which might support the allegation of commission of gang-rape.

6.Sri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases of the present applicant in para-42 of the bail application, wherein the present applicant has been granted bail (Annexure No.14). Further, attention has been drawn towards Annexure Nos.15 to 21 of the bail application, which are the bail orders of the co-accused Seema Devi, dated 24.02.2025 passed in Bail Application No.1689 of 2025, co-accused Ranjeet Yadav, dated 04.04.2025 passed in Bail Application No.2846 of 2025, co-accused Sunil Yadav @ Jeda, dated 10.04.2025 passed in Bail Application No.3045 of 2025, co-accused Akhilesh @ Akhilesh Yadav, dated 16.05.2025 passed in Bail Application No.4248 of 2025, co-accused Kishan Yadav, dated 21.05.2025 passed in Bail Application No.4423 of 2025, co-accused, Dharmendra Yadav, dated 21.05.2025 passed in Bail Application No.4427 of 2025 and the co-accused Vivek Yadav, dated 27.05.2025 passed in Bail Application No.4545 of 2025. Therefore, Sri Sharma has stated that on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. The charge-sheet has been filed. He undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.

7.Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that the culpability of the present applicant in the commission of offence along with other co-accused persons has been found, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, however, the direction may be issued to expedite the trial.

8.Sri Tripathi has further submitted that all the co-accused persons are dreadened criminal and the manner under which the gang rape with the victim has been committed shows their courage and fearless character against the land of law, therefore, all the aforesaid accused persons must be languished in jail. The present applicant is a resident of Delhi and the Pairokar, who has filed this bail application is not a family member of the present applicant, but is one of his friend, and is resident of State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, if the present applicant is released on bail, he may try to abscond from judicial proceedings. Therefore, Sri Tripathi has submitted that if this Hon'ble Court grant bail on the basis of principles of parity, any strict condition may be imposed upon the present applicant in the interest of prosecution. The same submission has been reiterated by Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate.

9.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that there is unexplained delay in lodging the impugned F.I.R. inasmuch as the impugned F.I.R. was lodged on 30.11.2024 for the incident dated 23.11.2024; the specific allegation of gang rape has been levelled against the accused persons, namely, Kishan Yadav, Vivek Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav, Dharmendra Yadav, Ranjit Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Shani, who have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.02.2025, 04.04.2025, 10.04.2025, 16.05.2025, 21.05.2025 & 27.05.2025 (supra); the charge-sheet has been filed; the criminal history registered against the present applicant he has been granted bail (Annexure No.14) and the undertaking that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.

10.Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

11.Let the applicant (Anuj Gupta @ Shani) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each, out of two sureties the applicant shall file one local surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv)The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (v)The applicant after release from jail shall not meet the prosecutrix or her family members, failing which, any appropriate application for cancellation of bail may be filed by the State or by the informant.

12.Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded on day-to-day basis with expedition in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial proceedings properly. . Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench