State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 5 by way of filing his Vakalatnama.

2. Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record.

3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned FIR bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0222/2025, under Sections 76, 115(2), 351(3), 127(2) and 65(1) B.N.S. read with Sections 7/8 and 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 67 Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 lodged at Police Station Dostpur, District Sultanpur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence, as alleged. The impugned FIR has been lodged on 12.08.2025 for the alleged incident of dated 12.07.2025, without explaining delay of one month.

5. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure-1 supplementary affidavit, which is a letter dated 18.10.2025 issued the office of Superintendent, Community Health Centre, Dostpur, Sultanpur, indicating therein that on 12.07.2025 there was one camp at Barat Ghar, Alahdadpur for the purpose of vaccination. 2 CRLP No. 9800 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the date of incident is 12.07.2025 at Barat Ghar, Alahdadpur but on that day there was one vaccination camp on the same place and, therefore, the allegation is improbable inasmuch as during the time, when vaccination camp was running, there was rush at the area and in such circumstances the incident in question could have not taken place.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards para-5 of the supplementary affidavit wherein he has indicated timing of such vaccination camp was from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. He has also submitted that the allegation has been levelled against two accused persons and one accused person, namely, Vishal Singh has been arrested after making his encounter.

8. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has stated that initially the FIR was lodged under those sections wherein the punishment was upto 7 years and, therefore, this Court granted benefit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 as the order dated 27.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7723/2025 has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the petition. He has further submitted that during the course of investigation Sections 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act have been added.

9. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the prosecution story has been improved during the course of investigation so as to implicate the petitioner in a serious allegation. Investigation is going on and the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation.

10. Per contra, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, showing the relevant extract of the case diary. She has also shown the copy of the instructions letter dated 28.10.2025 provided by Shri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, In-charge Inspector, Police Station Dostpur, Sultanpur.

11. As per the aforesaid instructions letter as well as the relevant extract of the case diary, statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. have been recorded. While getting 3 CRLP No. 9800 of 2025 her statements recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution story which has been indicated in the FIR. She has categorically stated that when she was returning from school, around 3.30 p.m., both the accused persons, to whom she used to say "Bhaiya" forcefully took her to the back portion of godown of the Barat Ghar where both the accused persons had initially started teasing her but when she started crying, co-accused Vishal, to whom she said Vishal Bhaiya, slapped her. Such accused Vishal had caught hold her hands tightly and the petitioner, to whom she addressed as Anurag Bhaiya, undressed her by putting her leggy down. After making her naked, both the accused persons clicked her photograph and threatened that they will make such video viral if she makes any complaint of this incident. The petitioner tried to establish physical relation with her, whereas co-accused- Vishal pushed her mouth so that she could not cry. As self-defence, she assaulted some slaps on the face of the petitioner. Another accused Vishal had committed an act of fingering in her private part and threatened her for dire consequences. On account of social shame and apprehension, she did not lodge FIR of the aforesaid incident but she and her family members came to know on 11.08.2024 that her video has been circulated on social media and so-many persons have seen that video then the impugned FIR has been lodged. In her statement, the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she is aged about 13 years, studying in Class-X. In the case diary, the reference of that video clip has been given and, therefore, the FIR under Section 67 I.T. Act has also been lodged.

12. In view of the above, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, has stated that this is a case where a minor girl has not only been teased by the accused persons to whom she used to say ' Bhaiya' but tried to commit rape with her. The petitioner is said to have attempted to commit rape when she was in a naked condition and the co-accused committed rape by fingering into her private part and that act comes within the purview of 'Rape'. She has also stated that in view of the materials available on record and the statements of the prosecutrix, the petitioner is not entitled for any protection and, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused 4 CRLP No. 9800 of 2025 the materials available on record, we find that the delay of one month has been properly explained inasmuch as the prosecutrix and her family members kept mum till such obscene video was not circulated and as soon as such video was circulated on 11.08.2025, the impugned FIR had been lodged on 12.08.2025. Further, this is a case where a minor girl of 13 years has been subjected to not only physical molestation, teasing but rape also by none other than those persons to whom she used to say bhaiya and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned FIR and to grant any interim protection to the petitioner.

14. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, being misconceived.

15. It is made clear that while dismissing this writ petition, we have not entered into merit of the issue, which can be considered by the investigating officer and, therefore, the investigating officer shall conduct and conclude the investigation independently, without being influenced from any observation of this order, strictly in accordance with law, with expedition so that the police report can be filed and further proceedings may carry on as per law. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Oct 30, 2025 MVS/- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 5 by way of filing his Vakalatnama.

2. Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record.

3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned FIR bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0222/2025, under Sections 76, 115(2), 351(3), 127(2) and 65(1) B.N.S. read with Sections 7/8 and 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 67 Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 lodged at Police Station Dostpur, District Sultanpur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence, as alleged. The impugned FIR has been lodged on 12.08.2025 for the alleged incident of dated 12.07.2025, without explaining delay of one month.

5. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure-1 supplementary affidavit, which is a letter dated 18.10.2025 issued the office of Superintendent, Community Health Centre, Dostpur, Sultanpur, indicating therein that on 12.07.2025 there was one camp at Barat Ghar, Alahdadpur for the purpose of vaccination. 2 CRLP No. 9800 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the date of incident is 12.07.2025 at Barat Ghar, Alahdadpur but on that day there was one vaccination camp on the same place and, therefore, the allegation is improbable inasmuch as during the time, when vaccination camp was running, there was rush at the area and in such circumstances the incident in question could have not taken place.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards para-5 of the supplementary affidavit wherein he has indicated timing of such vaccination camp was from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. He has also submitted that the allegation has been levelled against two accused persons and one accused person, namely, Vishal Singh has been arrested after making his encounter.

8. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has stated that initially the FIR was lodged under those sections wherein the punishment was upto 7 years and, therefore, this Court granted benefit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 as the order dated 27.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7723/2025 has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the petition. He has further submitted that during the course of investigation Sections 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act have been added.

9. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the prosecution story has been improved during the course of investigation so as to implicate the petitioner in a serious allegation. Investigation is going on and the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation.

10. Per contra, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, showing the relevant extract of the case diary. She has also shown the copy of the instructions letter dated 28.10.2025 provided by Shri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, In-charge Inspector, Police Station Dostpur, Sultanpur.

11. As per the aforesaid instructions letter as well as the relevant extract of the case diary, statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. have been recorded. While getting 3 CRLP No. 9800 of 2025 her statements recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution story which has been indicated in the FIR. She has categorically stated that when she was returning from school, around 3.30 p.m., both the accused persons, to whom she used to say "Bhaiya" forcefully took her to the back portion of godown of the Barat Ghar where both the accused persons had initially started teasing her but when she started crying, co-accused Vishal, to whom she said Vishal Bhaiya, slapped her. Such accused Vishal had caught hold her hands tightly and the petitioner, to whom she addressed as Anurag Bhaiya, undressed her by putting her leggy down. After making her naked, both the accused persons clicked her photograph and threatened that they will make such video viral if she makes any complaint of this incident. The petitioner tried to establish physical relation with her, whereas co-accused- Vishal pushed her mouth so that she could not cry. As self-defence, she assaulted some slaps on the face of the petitioner. Another accused Vishal had committed an act of fingering in her private part and threatened her for dire consequences. On account of social shame and apprehension, she did not lodge FIR of the aforesaid incident but she and her family members came to know on 11.08.2024 that her video has been circulated on social media and so-many persons have seen that video then the impugned FIR has been lodged. In her statement, the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she is aged about 13 years, studying in Class-X. In the case diary, the reference of that video clip has been given and, therefore, the FIR under Section 67 I.T. Act has also been lodged.

12. In view of the above, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, has stated that this is a case where a minor girl has not only been teased by the accused persons to whom she used to say ' Bhaiya' but tried to commit rape with her. The petitioner is said to have attempted to commit rape when she was in a naked condition and the co-accused committed rape by fingering into her private part and that act comes within the purview of 'Rape'. She has also stated that in view of the materials available on record and the statements of the prosecutrix, the petitioner is not entitled for any protection and, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused 4 CRLP No. 9800 of 2025 the materials available on record, we find that the delay of one month has been properly explained inasmuch as the prosecutrix and her family members kept mum till such obscene video was not circulated and as soon as such video was circulated on 11.08.2025, the impugned FIR had been lodged on 12.08.2025. Further, this is a case where a minor girl of 13 years has been subjected to not only physical molestation, teasing but rape also by none other than those persons to whom she used to say bhaiya and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned FIR and to grant any interim protection to the petitioner.

14. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, being misconceived.

15. It is made clear that while dismissing this writ petition, we have not entered into merit of the issue, which can be considered by the investigating officer and, therefore, the investigating officer shall conduct and conclude the investigation independently, without being influenced from any observation of this order, strictly in accordance with law, with expedition so that the police report can be filed and further proceedings may carry on as per law. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Oct 30, 2025 MVS/- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench