Sanju @ Shivendra Vishwkarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17416

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12323 of 2024

Applicant :- Sanju @ Shivendra Vishwkarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajnish Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajnish Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.87 of 2024 under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Sangipur, District- Pratapgarh.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 08.05.2024 against the two persons, including the applicant on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed on 02.02.2024 alleging that the informant got married on 26.11.2023. One week after her marriage, she went to live with her husband in Mumbai. On 24.12.2023, she was coming alone from Mumbai to Pratapgarh for some important work. Gulfam, who is neighbor of the informant, met her at Kalyan Railway Station and stated that he was also going to Pratapgarh, he will drop her home. The informant reached Prayagraj station along with Gulfam at 07:00 PM where Sanju met them, who is also their neighbor. Both of them accompanied her to Pratapgarh by Bus. They alighted the bus at 09:00 PM. Rohit, brother of Sanju had come there with motorcycle. The accused persons threatened the informant with a pistol and they took her to the ancestral house of Sanju at village Singni. Both the accused persons raped the informant

¶9

inside the house of Sanju and they prepared a video wherein they forced the informant to say that she loves Sanju and wants to marry her and she had come from her husband's home out of her own free will. Both the accused persons dropped her near her home at about 08:00 PM on 26.12.2023. The informant had given an application to the S.H.O. of Police Station on 01.01.2024 and she had given an application to the Superintendent of Police on 04.01.2024 but no action was taken thereof.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶11

The medico-legal examination of the informant was conducted on 13.05.2024 and no mark of injury or sign of use of force was found. The pathological examination report mentions absence of spermatozoa. The victim reiterated the F.I.R. version in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶12

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application and copies of material collected during investigation as well as the copy of the charge-sheet dated 15.09.2024 have been annexed therein.

¶13

Besides the statement of the informant, no other material has been made part of the case diary. Although the informant has alleged that the accused persons had prepared a video by putting her on gun point, it appears that no such video could come to light during investigation. There is no mention about any complaint given by the informant to the S.H.O. or the Superintendent of Police.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident allegedly took place on 25.12.2023 and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 08.05.2023; that besides statement of the victim, there is no other material to support her allegations; although the F.I.R. has alleged preparation of some video under threat, no material could come to light in support of this allegation and that the investigation stands concluded, a charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.07.2024, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Sanju @ Shivendra Vishwkarma be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶18

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 26.3.2025 -Amit K-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanju @ Shivendra Vishwkarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju @ Shivendra Vishwkarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiva Pasi @ Ankit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Arman Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Amar Nath Maurya Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Durgesh Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.