Dismissed¶¶21

Rahul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2025BAIL/12831/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rahul; second bail application rejected; Allahabad High Court; Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.; 9.7.2025; 2025:AHC:108957; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION 12831 of 2025; Case Crime No.1160 of 2020; Kotwali Dehat; Bulandshahr; IPC Sections 363, 376-D, 506; POCSO Act 5(g), 5(h), 5(L), 6; kidnapping and rape of minor girl (16 years); no parity with co-accused Rohit (2024:AHC:71057); victim testimony consistent against both accused; 2 of 6 prosecution witnesses examined; in jail since 31.12.2020; liberty to reapply if trial not concluded within 6 months.

What did the court decide?

It is not a case of parity: the co-accused Rohit was granted bail before the statement of the victim was recorded, so his earlier grant does not justify bail for the applicant now that the victim has deposed. ¶¶17

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (named accused, in jail since 31.12.2020, alleging false implication and consent by the victim) should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.1160 of 2020 under Ss. 363, 376-D, 506 IPC and Ss. 5(g), 5(h), 5(l), 6 POCSO Act. +3 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

Since the trial is proceeding and two of six proposed prosecution witnesses have been examined, no case of bail is made out; the second bail application is rejected, with liberty to the applicant to approach the Court with a status report if the trial is not concluded within six months.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The Court takes note of the statement of the victim, which appears to be consistent against the applicant as well as the co-accused, weighing against bail.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.; Order Date 9.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:108957) rejected the second bail application of Rahul, a named accused along with his brother Rohit in Case Crime No.1160 of 2020, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, under Sections 363, 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5(g), 5(h), 5(L), 6 of the POCSO Act, arising from alleged kidnapping and rape of a minor girl aged 16 years. The first bail application had been disposed of by a reasoned order dated 8.4.2024 with a direction to the Trial Court to record the victim's statement within two months; the Trial Court's report dated 2.5.2025 showed two of six prosecution witnesses, including the victim, already examined. Holding that there was no parity with co-accused Rohit — whose bail in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.9819 of 2024 (2024:AHC:71057) predated the victim's deposition — and noting the victim's testimony consistent against both accused, the Court found no case for bail despite the applicant's detention since 31.12.2020 (about 4 years 6 months) and the plea of false implication and consent. The applicant was left at liberty to approach the Court with a status report if the trial is not concluded within six months.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108957

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12831 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ahamad Farhan,Haya Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P.Singh, learned A.G.A.

¶7

This is the second bail application.

¶8

First bail application was disposed of by a reasoned order dated 8.4.2024 and relevant part there of is mentioned hereinafter:

¶9

"3. Applicant is one of the named accused and is facing allegations with co-accused (brother) that they have committed an offence of kidnapping and rape with a minor girl of 16 years. 9 Considering that applicant is in jail for more than 3 years and three months, this bail application is disposed of with a direction to learned Trial Court that it will take all endeavour to record the statement of victim within a period of two months from today. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant also undertakes that as soon as victim is summoned she will appear before learned Trial Court to depose her statement and thereafter applicant will be at liberty to approach this Court or Trial Court as the case may be along with statement of victim and status of trial."

¶10

The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.1160 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376-D,

¶11

506 I.P.C. and 5 (g) 5(h), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act, I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Bulandshahr.

¶12

On the basis of order passed by this court, learned Trial Court has submitted a report dated 2.5.2025 that out of six prosecution witnesses two' have been examined including the victim.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 31.12.2020 that is about 4 years and 6 months and that victim was a consented party with other accused and applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶14

In the present case, co-accused Rohit has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.9819 of 2024, Rohit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:71057

¶15

Learned A.G.A has opposed the bail application and submits that co-accused was granted Bail before statement of victim was recorded and Court may take note of testimony of the victim who has remained consistent against the applicant as well as co-accused that both accused have committed rape on her.

¶16

I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

¶17

As referred above co-accused Rohit was granted bail before statement of victim was recorded, therefore, it is not a case of parity.

¶18

Court also takes note of statement of victim which appears to be consistent against the applicant as well as co accused.

¶19

Trial is proceeding and out of 6 proposed prosecution witnesses two have been examined, therefore, no case of bail is made out. However, applicant will be at liberty to approach this

¶20

Court in case trial is not concluded within a period of 6 months alongwith status report.

¶21

Accordingly, this second bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 9.7.2025

¶22

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases