Dismissed¶¶18

Kalua Alias Sachin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 May 2025BAIL/17480/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejection; Allahabad High Court; Krishan Pahal J.; POCSO rape of 14-year-old minor victim; Sections 70(2) and 351(3) BNS 2023; Section 67 IT Act; delayed FIR sixteen hours; menstrual bleeding medical plea; injuries on private part; statement under Section 183 BNSS; Sugarcane field incident 06.12.2024; Case Crime No.331 of 2024 PS Narsena Bulandshahr; co-accused Shiva clicked video; expeditious trial direction; Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220; Hussain v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702; custody since 07.12.2024.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; bail rejected. Trial court directed to decide the case expeditiously if there is no legal impediment. ¶¶18

Kalua Alias Sachin Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; bail rejected. Trial court directed to decide the case expeditiously if there is no legal impediment.

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, accused of committing rape on a 14-year-old victim on 06.12.2024 in Case Crime No.331 of 2024 under Sections 70(2)/351(3) B.N.S. 2023, Section 5g/6 POCSO Act and Section 67 I.T. Act, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. +2 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the victim, coupled with the fact that the allegations were reiterated by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the Court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant; the bail application was held devoid of merits and rejected.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The pending case before the trial court is to be decided expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 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.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are confined to the facts brought by the parties for disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17480 of 2025, decided 21.05.2025 [Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:85572] — Bail application under Sections 70(2)/351(3) B.N.S. 2023, Section 5g/6 POCSO Act and Section 67 I.T. Act (Case Crime No.331 of 2024, P.S. Narsena, Dist. Bulandshahr), alleging rape of a 14-year-old victim in a sugarcane field on 06.12.2024 at about 4:30 a.m., REJECTED. Defence pleas of a 16-hour-plus unexplained FIR delay, bleeding attributable to menstruation, and the video having allegedly been clicked by co-accused Shiva did not persuade the Court; the victim's injuries and the reiteration of allegations in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. prevailed. Observations confined to the bail stage; trial court directed to dispose of the case expeditiously relying on Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702. Applicant in jail since 07.12.2024.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85572

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17480 of 2025 Applicant :- Kalua Alias Sachin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 09.05.2025.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.331 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 351(3) B.N.S., 2023, Section 5g/6 POCSO Act and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Narsena, District Bulandshahr with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forced the victim into the sugarcane field and committed rape with her on 06.12.2024 at about 4:30 a.m. when she had gone to ease herself out.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by more than sixteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution story does not stand fortified by medical evidence, although some bleeding is stated to have been observed by the doctor but that was naturally due to her menstruation cycle as it is observed by the doctor that her menstrual period started from 05.12.2024 and the incident is of 06.12.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is also mentioned there that the said period lasted for 3-4 days, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. The applicant had seen the victim in a compromising state with some unknown person and had threatened her to reveal the said matter to her parents, as such, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the video is stated to have been clicked by co-accused person Shiva and not the applicant, as such, the provisions of Section 67 I.T.

¶13

Act have not been attracted against the applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is another witness Smt. Pooja who has stated that she was also tried to force into agricultural field, but she escaped and out of fear came back and did not reveal the matter to the parents of the victim. She has concealed the matter. The applicant is in jail since 07.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is true that the doctor examining the victim had found her to be menstruating at the said time of incident, but she has observed injuries in her vital part, which cannot be explained by the said fact as she was having inflammation on her private part and there was 1 x 1 c.m. linear tear at 6 o'clock on her private part and she was bleeding.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the victim is 14 years old, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the victim coupled with the fact that the said allegations have been reiterated by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶18

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶19

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kalua Alias Sachin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalua Alias Sachin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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