Ravindra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 704 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ravindra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 April, 2026

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:73514

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9064 of 2026

Ravindra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Maneesh Tiwari, Pawan Kumar Shukla

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 49

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. Notice in respect of opposite party-4 was served in the office of opposite party-4 before filing the present writ petition. However, in spite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party-4 to oppose this repeat application for bail, even in revised call.

4. Learned A.G.A. submits that notice of present repeat application for bail was served upon first informant/opposite party-2 on 10.03.2026. However, in spite of service of notice, neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant/opposite party-2 in opposition to present repeat application for bail nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this repeat application for bail, even in revised call.

5. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Ravindra, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2022, under Section 376-AB IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Rani Ki Sarai, District-Azamgarh during the pendency of trial i.e. Special Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2022 (State Vs. Ravindra), now pending in the Court of Special Judge, POCSO, District-Azamgarh.

6. The first bail application of applicant-Ravindra was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 25.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24666 of 2023 (Ravindra Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). For ready reference, the order dated 25.09.2023 is reproduced hereinunder:-

"Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, the learned counsel for first informant.

Perused the record.

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Ravindra seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2022, under Section 376 AB IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Staiton- Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh during the pendency of trial.

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 11.6.2022 a prompt F.I.R dated 11.6.2022 was lodged by first informant Ramjeet (father of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.182 of 2022, under Section 376 AB IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Staiton- Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Ravindra has been nominated as solitary named accused.

The Gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused enticed away the daughter of first informant i.e. the prosecutrix namely X and thereafter deliberately dislodged her modesty.

After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of chapter XII Cr.P.C. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C, on the date of occurrence itself i.e. 11.6.2022, which is on record at page 21 of the paper book. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has not only supported the F.I.R., but she has also detailed the manner of occurrence.

Thereafter the prosecutrix was requested for her internal medical examination. The prosecutrix in her statement before the Doctor who medically examined her has rejoined her earlier statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. The Doctor who examined the prosecutrix, however, did not find any signs on her body so as to denote commission of sexual assault. With regard to the private part of the prosecutrix, the Doctor opined as follows:

"hymen intact"

Thereafter certain samples were taken from the body of prosecutrix for pathalogical examination. However, supplementary medico legal report of the prosecutrix shows negative result.

Ultimately, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, which is on record at page 38 of the paper book, in which she has rejoinder her earlier statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Witnesses so examined has supported the prosecution story. Investigating Officer further discovered the age of the prosecutrix as recorded in school records. As per the same, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was reported to be 21.4.2013. As such, the prosecutrix was aged about 9 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.6.2022. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of the named accused is established in the crime in question. Accordingly he submitted charge sheet dated 12.7.2022.

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. According to learned counsel for applicant as per medical examination report of the prosecutrix, no injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix so as to denote commission of sexual assault. He, therefore contends that medical evidence does not support the occullar version of the occurrence.

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 11.6.2022. As such, he has undergone more than four months of incarceration. The Police Report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessecitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since prosecutrix is a young girl aged about 9 years and the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused guilty of committing sexual assault. therefore, no indulgence by shown by this Court in favour of applicant. As per the medical determination of age of the prosecutrix, which is at page 35 of the paper book, the prosecutrix is said to be aged about 8-10 years. On the basis of above, it is urged that that prosecutrix is young girl of tender age, whose modesty has been dislodged by applicant. In opposition to submission urged by learned counsel for applicant, it is contended by learned A.G.A. that POCSO Act deals with not only penetrative sexual assault but also aggravated sexual assault. The manner in which sexual assault was committed upon prosecutrix by applicant clearly denotes the commission of aggravated sexual assault. When the aforesaid test is examined, it cannot be conclusively said that no offence is made out against applicant. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Phool Singh Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74 , learned A.G.A. submits that prosecution of an accused for an offence of rape and sexual assault can be maintained even in the absence of medical evidence and on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix. However, in such a circumstance the statement of the prosecutrix must be clear, categorical and consistent. When the aforesaid test is applied to the present case and the aforemeitoned statements of the prosecutrix are taken as as a whole it cannot be said that the same are inconsistent and contradictory. Rather they fall in the category of impeccable evidence. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. As such, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

Learned counsel representing the first informant has adopted the submissions urged by learned A.G.A.

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that as per medical opinion, the prosecutrix is a young girl aged about 8 to 10 years, no such document has been brought on record to show that the prosecutrix is above 18 years of age, though medical evidence does not establish the commission of penetrative sexual assault, but the statement of the prosecutrix clearly establishes the commission of aggravated sexual assault, since the prosecutrix is below 16 years of age, therefore, the rigours of law laid down in X(Minor) Vs/State of Jharkhand and Anr., 2022 Live Law (SC) 194 are clearly established, therefore, irrespective of submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant, in support of the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

As a result the application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

It is accordingly rejected."

7. Learned counsel for applicant in support of this repeat application for bail submits that subsequent to the order dated 25.09.2023, the trial of applicant commenced before Court below. Up to this stage, almost all the prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. PW-1 Ramjeet, PW-2 prosecutrix, PW-3 Savitri Devi, PW-4 Priya and PW-5 Naresh Kumar have depsoed before Court below. All the aforesaid prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR. On the above premise, it is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that once the prosecution witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution story in their respective depositions before Court below, no justifiable ground can be said to exist to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial.

8. Apart from above, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 11.06.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 3 years and 9 & 1/2 months of incarceration. The charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant would thus submit that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail or shall hamper the course of trial.

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused and facing trial under incarceration, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Courrt during the pendency of trial. Applicant has been charge sheeted for an offence under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. As such, the prosecutrix is a child being below 18 years of age and as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. Since applicant is guilty of dislodging the modesty of prosecutrix, who is young and innocent girl, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. However, learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present repeat application for bail with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused and accusations made, this Court finds that in the trial of applicant before Court below, 5 prosecution witnesses of fact have deposed up to this stage. However, none of the prosecution witnesses including first informant and prosecutrix have supported the FIR. As such, no justifiable ground can be said to be in existence to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant. From perusal of charge sheet, copy of which is on record as Annexure-3 to the bail application, it is apparent that there are 6 prosecution witnesses of fact. Out of which, 5 prosecution witnesses of fact have deposed before Court below. Admittedly, the prosecutrix and first informant have not supported the FIR in their respective depositions before Court below. In view of above, this Court finds that there is no legally justifiable ground to prolong custodial arrest of applicant. Considering the above and irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this repeat application for bail, this Court finds that applicant has made out a case for bail. As such, this repeat application for bail is liable to be allowed.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant-Ravindra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

13. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

(Rajeev Misra,J.)

April 3, 2026

Vinay