Virendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12436 of 2025

¶3

Virendra

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Amir Khan, Surya Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 17

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Surya Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Sinha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.

¶9

This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 226 of 2024, under Sections 376(2) n I.P.C. and Section 5J(2)/6 & 5L/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur. The first bail application has been rejected as not pressed by means of an order dated 12.05.2025.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.06.2024 stating that the applicant was seeing the complainant's sister aged about 15 years under the allurement marrying her and kept on making physical relations with her. When the complainant's sister became pregnant the applicant did not marry her.

¶11

On 09.08.2024 the applicant had filed an application before the learned trial court stating that the applicant did not ever make any physical relations with the victim and to verify the correctness of the allegations DNA profile of the applicant and the victim's child be matched. The inspector in charge submitted a report in furtherance of the aforesaid application stating that the victim had delivered a still born child on 07.08.2024 and the dead body had been burried. The complainant stated that he could not identify the place where the dead body was burried. In these circumstances the DNA profile

¶12

BAIL No. 12436 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

matching could not be done.

¶15

Subsequent to the rejection of first bail application the informant and the victim have been examined by the learned trial court and both of them supported the prosecution case in their examination-in-chief but they have categorically denied the prosecution allegation in their cross-examination.

¶16

In the affidavit filed in support of 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.

¶17

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. He has submitted that the information of bail application has been delivered to the victim/informant through police.

¶18

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.07.2024 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, 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.

¶19

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant-Virendra be released on bail in the aforesaid 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶24

December 11, 2025

¶25

Ram.

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)