Vimal Kishore vs Others

Shri Vikas Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant, who has filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.411 of 2025, under Section 65(1), 333 BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Kheri, District Kheri. In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 18.6.2025 at about 2 O'clock in the night while the informant was sleeping near his shop in front of his house, while his wife and two sons were sleeping under the chappar inside the house. Suddenly, when the electricity went out, the wife and one son came and slept beside the informant, and the door remained open. One daughter and one son of the informant continued sleeping under the chappar. When the informant went to close the door, he saw that his daughter, aged 16 years, was being gagged by the applicant. He had tied a cloth over her mouth and was molesting her by force. On seeing the informant, the applicant tried to escape, but the informant caught hold of him. By then, the entire family had awakened, and the neighbours had also gathered. Some people from the crowd beat Vimal. Taking advantage of the commotion and darkness, Vimal managed to flee from the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had initially given an application dated 18.06.2025 against the complainant alleging that 2 BAIL No. 8185 of 2025 the complainant had beaten him. It is submitted that due to a trivial dispute, the applicant was assaulted by the complainant. Apprehending that the applicant might implicate him, the complainant got an FIR registered regarding the incident dated 18.06.2025. It is further submitted that the medico-legal examination of the applicant was conducted, wherein three simple injuries were noted by the doctor, with an opinion that the injuries were more than one week old. The said medico- legal examination report is on record. This, according to the learned counsel, clearly shows that the injuries were not sustained by the applicant on

18.06.2025, rather prior to that date. Thus, the FIR lodged by the complainant is nothing but a counterblast to save himself. It is also submitted that Almit Kumar, the brother of the victim, who was sleeping with her at the relevant time, has not been examined by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, the mother of the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, did not make any allegation of rape. However, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS after six days, for the first time, allegations of rape have been levelled. There is no corroborative injury or sign found in the medico-legal examination of the victim. Further, the Investigating Officer has not conducted the radiological examination to ascertain the age of the victim. As per the school record, the victim is stated to be 16 years old. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant, but they could not dispute the fact that the statement of Amit Kumar, who was sleeping with the victim at the relevant time, has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the improvements made by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS; the lack of corroborative material in the medico- legal examination of the victim; the opinion of the doctor on the injury report of the applicant; the applicant is in jail since 20.06.2025, and without 3 BAIL No. 8185 of 2025 expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Vimal Kishore be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS)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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). August 29, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shri Vikas Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant, who has filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.411 of 2025, under Section 65(1), 333 BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Kheri, District Kheri. In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 18.6.2025 at about 2 O'clock in the night while the informant was sleeping near his shop in front of his house, while his wife and two sons were sleeping under the chappar inside the house. Suddenly, when the electricity went out, the wife and one son came and slept beside the informant, and the door remained open. One daughter and one son of the informant continued sleeping under the chappar. When the informant went to close the door, he saw that his daughter, aged 16 years, was being gagged by the applicant. He had tied a cloth over her mouth and was molesting her by force. On seeing the informant, the applicant tried to escape, but the informant caught hold of him. By then, the entire family had awakened, and the neighbours had also gathered. Some people from the crowd beat Vimal. Taking advantage of the commotion and darkness, Vimal managed to flee from the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had initially given an application dated 18.06.2025 against the complainant alleging that 2 BAIL No. 8185 of 2025 the complainant had beaten him. It is submitted that due to a trivial dispute, the applicant was assaulted by the complainant. Apprehending that the applicant might implicate him, the complainant got an FIR registered regarding the incident dated 18.06.2025. It is further submitted that the medico-legal examination of the applicant was conducted, wherein three simple injuries were noted by the doctor, with an opinion that the injuries were more than one week old. The said medico- legal examination report is on record. This, according to the learned counsel, clearly shows that the injuries were not sustained by the applicant on

18.06.2025, rather prior to that date. Thus, the FIR lodged by the complainant is nothing but a counterblast to save himself. It is also submitted that Almit Kumar, the brother of the victim, who was sleeping with her at the relevant time, has not been examined by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, the mother of the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, did not make any allegation of rape. However, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS after six days, for the first time, allegations of rape have been levelled. There is no corroborative injury or sign found in the medico-legal examination of the victim. Further, the Investigating Officer has not conducted the radiological examination to ascertain the age of the victim. As per the school record, the victim is stated to be 16 years old. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant, but they could not dispute the fact that the statement of Amit Kumar, who was sleeping with the victim at the relevant time, has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the improvements made by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS; the lack of corroborative material in the medico- legal examination of the victim; the opinion of the doctor on the injury report of the applicant; the applicant is in jail since 20.06.2025, and without 3 BAIL No. 8185 of 2025 expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Vimal Kishore be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS)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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). August 29, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench