Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State; Shri Sharad Nandan Ojha, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

3. The applicants seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.384 of 2025, under Section 70(1), 110, 115(2), 352 BNS, Section 5/6 of POCSO Act & Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

4. In terms of the FIR lodged on 16.05.2025, allegations were levelled that 2 BAIL No. 10613 of 2025 daughter of the informant aged about 14 years had gone to the school as usual and some lady informed the informant that the daughter of the informant was sitting and was weeping and when the informant reached there, she was informed that on 15.05.2025 at about 8 PM, the co-accused Ankit met the victim on Instagram and called her to meet which was initially refused, however, in the morning at about 7 AM when the victim was going to school, the co-accused was standing with a four wheeler and offered to roam about and believing him, she sat in the car and thereafter, the co- accused took her to a park where the two friends including the applicant were present. Subsequently, she requested the co-accused to drop her back to school on which an offer was made to roam about in the car. Subsequently, all the three accused alongwith the victim went to a house situated opposite to RTO office and offered that we will stay here for some time and thereafter, she will be dropped back to the school. Subsequently, she was taken to the home and all the three accused removed clothes. It is alleged against the applicants that they caught hold of her and co-accused Ankit committed wrong on her. It was stated that all the three co-accused committed wrong on her because of which she became unconscious. She also stated that when she shouted, some aunt came and all the three were chased out of that place. Subsequently, mother of one of the co-accused came who abused her and the victim was beaten by them.

5. In the statement under Section 180 BNSS, the informant reiterated the same version. In the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the same version was reiterated. It was further stated that when she shouted, an aunt came and caught hold of Ankit and the other two co-accused including the applicant ran away. It was also stated that mother of one of the co-accused also came and started removing her clothes and making her video and threats were issued. Thereafter, the mother of the victim came and took her back. The said statement under Section 183 BNSS was recorded and thereafter, the victim was sent for medical examination.

6. In the medical examination conducted at 7 AM on 16.05.2025 the victim stated apart from the statement that mother of the applicant Saurabh and the co-accused Ankit came and after making some video threatened the victim and thereafter, mother of one of the co-accused called the parents of the victim. In the medical done on the victim, no injury was seen in the private 3 BAIL No. 10613 of 2025 part and no external injuries were seen; hymen was found to be torn and no external perineal injury was seen, only the injury was seen on the cheek. The said injury was noted in the medical conducted on 16.05.2025 at about 06:28 PM whereas the external medical examination was done on 16.05.2025 at about 7 AM.

7. In the light of the said material, submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the victim was close to the co-accused Ankit and became friends through Instagram as is also evident from some of the photographs which has been filed alongwith the rejoinder affidavit showing their friendship. It is further argued that the relationship with Ankit was on account of their friendship and the present applicants have been wrongly implicated for the offence in question. It is further argued that although the age of the victim is shown to be around 14 years, in the medical examination, tentative age of the victim was depicted as 18 years.

8. In short, submission is that the relationship was consensual with the co- accused and the applicants have been falsely implicated with the offence in question. It is argued that the applicants are in custody since

16.05.2025 and have no criminal antecedents and are aged about 18 & 19 years respectively.

9. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, strongly opposed the bail application by arguing that a heinous offence was committed by all the three co-accused on a girl aged about 14 years. He argues that in terms of the statements, allegations implicating the applicants for rape are existent. He presses that the injury on the cheek corroborates the allegations against the applicants and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail applications deserve to be rejected. As regards the age, he argues that in terms of the medical examination, the determination is based merely on the basis of ocular testimony and not through any scientific process. It is further argued that the victim apprehends threat from the applicants. It is not disputed that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and the statement of the informant is going on.

10. Considering the statements made at the Bar, prima-facie, in terms of the FIR and in terms of the statements under Section 180 & 183 BNSS, prima- 4 BAIL No. 10613 of 2025 facie, existence of closeness with the co-accused is apparently made out. The very fact that the victim went with the co-accused instead of going to the school prima-facie denotes the closeness of the victim with the co-accused. Medical on record does not corroborate the exaggerated allegations of rape committed by three persons over a span of one hour. There is a difference with regard to two documents in respect of the age which is to be ascertained at the time of trial.

11. As such, considering the fact that the applicants are in custody since

16.05.2025 & 17.05.2025 respectively and there are huge inconsistencies in the material as highlighted above, the applicants who have no criminal antecedents are entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Adarsh Gupta alias Saurabh Gupta be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on their furnishing a personal bond each with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicants shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicants 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.

13. However, the trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment.

14. The findings herein are prima-facie for the purpose of grant of bail and it will have no effect on the merits of the case. December 3, 2025 nishant (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State; Shri Sharad Nandan Ojha, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

3. The applicants seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.384 of 2025, under Section 70(1), 110, 115(2), 352 BNS, Section 5/6 of POCSO Act & Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

4. In terms of the FIR lodged on 16.05.2025, allegations were levelled that 2 BAIL No. 10613 of 2025 daughter of the informant aged about 14 years had gone to the school as usual and some lady informed the informant that the daughter of the informant was sitting and was weeping and when the informant reached there, she was informed that on 15.05.2025 at about 8 PM, the co-accused Ankit met the victim on Instagram and called her to meet which was initially refused, however, in the morning at about 7 AM when the victim was going to school, the co-accused was standing with a four wheeler and offered to roam about and believing him, she sat in the car and thereafter, the co- accused took her to a park where the two friends including the applicant were present. Subsequently, she requested the co-accused to drop her back to school on which an offer was made to roam about in the car. Subsequently, all the three accused alongwith the victim went to a house situated opposite to RTO office and offered that we will stay here for some time and thereafter, she will be dropped back to the school. Subsequently, she was taken to the home and all the three accused removed clothes. It is alleged against the applicants that they caught hold of her and co-accused Ankit committed wrong on her. It was stated that all the three co-accused committed wrong on her because of which she became unconscious. She also stated that when she shouted, some aunt came and all the three were chased out of that place. Subsequently, mother of one of the co-accused came who abused her and the victim was beaten by them.

5. In the statement under Section 180 BNSS, the informant reiterated the same version. In the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the same version was reiterated. It was further stated that when she shouted, an aunt came and caught hold of Ankit and the other two co-accused including the applicant ran away. It was also stated that mother of one of the co-accused also came and started removing her clothes and making her video and threats were issued. Thereafter, the mother of the victim came and took her back. The said statement under Section 183 BNSS was recorded and thereafter, the victim was sent for medical examination.

6. In the medical examination conducted at 7 AM on 16.05.2025 the victim stated apart from the statement that mother of the applicant Saurabh and the co-accused Ankit came and after making some video threatened the victim and thereafter, mother of one of the co-accused called the parents of the victim. In the medical done on the victim, no injury was seen in the private 3 BAIL No. 10613 of 2025 part and no external injuries were seen; hymen was found to be torn and no external perineal injury was seen, only the injury was seen on the cheek. The said injury was noted in the medical conducted on 16.05.2025 at about 06:28 PM whereas the external medical examination was done on 16.05.2025 at about 7 AM.

7. In the light of the said material, submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the victim was close to the co-accused Ankit and became friends through Instagram as is also evident from some of the photographs which has been filed alongwith the rejoinder affidavit showing their friendship. It is further argued that the relationship with Ankit was on account of their friendship and the present applicants have been wrongly implicated for the offence in question. It is further argued that although the age of the victim is shown to be around 14 years, in the medical examination, tentative age of the victim was depicted as 18 years.

8. In short, submission is that the relationship was consensual with the co- accused and the applicants have been falsely implicated with the offence in question. It is argued that the applicants are in custody since

16.05.2025 and have no criminal antecedents and are aged about 18 & 19 years respectively.

9. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, strongly opposed the bail application by arguing that a heinous offence was committed by all the three co-accused on a girl aged about 14 years. He argues that in terms of the statements, allegations implicating the applicants for rape are existent. He presses that the injury on the cheek corroborates the allegations against the applicants and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail applications deserve to be rejected. As regards the age, he argues that in terms of the medical examination, the determination is based merely on the basis of ocular testimony and not through any scientific process. It is further argued that the victim apprehends threat from the applicants. It is not disputed that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and the statement of the informant is going on.

10. Considering the statements made at the Bar, prima-facie, in terms of the FIR and in terms of the statements under Section 180 & 183 BNSS, prima- 4 BAIL No. 10613 of 2025 facie, existence of closeness with the co-accused is apparently made out. The very fact that the victim went with the co-accused instead of going to the school prima-facie denotes the closeness of the victim with the co-accused. Medical on record does not corroborate the exaggerated allegations of rape committed by three persons over a span of one hour. There is a difference with regard to two documents in respect of the age which is to be ascertained at the time of trial.

11. As such, considering the fact that the applicants are in custody since

16.05.2025 & 17.05.2025 respectively and there are huge inconsistencies in the material as highlighted above, the applicants who have no criminal antecedents are entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Adarsh Gupta alias Saurabh Gupta be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on their furnishing a personal bond each with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicants shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicants 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.

13. However, the trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment.

14. The findings herein are prima-facie for the purpose of grant of bail and it will have no effect on the merits of the case. December 3, 2025 nishant (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench