Allahabad High Court
Vikash vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143693
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28528 of 2025
Applicant :- Vikash
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Belal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0012 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64, 127(2), 309(2), 317(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Chhibramau, District- Kannauj, during the pendency of trial.
4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16736 of 2025 and the following order was passed:-
"1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Somendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vineet Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0012 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64, 127(2), 309(2), 317(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Chhibramau, District - Kannauj, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the victim, who had left her house by taking Rs.25,000/- along with her on 04.01.2025 at about 06:30 PM. The applicant and four unknown persons are stated to have gang raped her in the same night.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.
6. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim was found to be a little bit of unsound mind by the learned Magistrate at the time of recording her statement u/s 183 BNSS but subsequently after putting certain questions, she found her to be a fit condition to depose during her said statement. The victim has stated that she had taken Rs.25,000/- along with her and on being asked about the incident, she has not levelled any allegation of gang rape rather she has stated that the applicant has established corporeal relationship with her and had subsequently called his friends as the victim left the said place. The applicant is stated to have retained Rs.25,000/- with him.
7. Learned counsel has next stated that the consent of the victim can be drawn from the fact that she had taken Rs.25000/- along with her. There is no medical corroboration of the incident as the doctor has not observed any injuries on her body. The victim by her looks seems to be major although as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 17 years.
8. Learned counsel has lastly contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.01.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is case of gang rape and the consent of the victim has no role in the instant case, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
10. Learned AGA has also opposed the bail application on the ground that the injuries were found on the body of the victim as the internal part of the victim was found with tears and bleeding, as such, the prosecution story stands corroborated.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the fact that the doctor has observed injuries on the vital parts of the victim coupled by the fact that the applicant is named in the FIR as well as in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
13. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring to light any new ground for pressing the instant bail application.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the instant bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
7. The present bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
