Shyamlal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112374

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19611 of 2025

Applicant :- Shyamlal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Gangwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vipin Gangwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 18.6.2025. As per office report dated 10.7.2025, notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 personally but no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 even when the matter is taken up in the revised list despite service of notice.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Shyamlal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.112 of 2025, under Sections 65(2), 75(2) of BNS and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Amariya, District Pilibhit.

¶10

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 22.4.2025 by Smt. Rambeti against the applicant alleging therein that on 22.4.2025 her daughter aged about 7 years, had gone to bring water from the tap wherein the applicant who is a priest in the temple, met her and enraged her modesty and inserted his finer in her private part. She came back while crying and then told her about the said incident. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that allegation although in the FIR is of the applicant enraging the modesty of the victim and inserting his finger in her private part but the same is false and concocted inasmuch as the medical evidence does not show any injury on the private part of the victim. It is argued that the doctor did not find any injury on private part of the victim and the hymen was also found to be intact. It is further argued that the applicant is aged about 65 years

¶12

as stated in para 15 of the affidavit in support of bail application. It is further argued that charge sheet has been submitted in the matter, para 17 of the affidavit in support of bail application has been placed before the Court. While placing para 11 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is submitted that Kalicharan, the husband of the informant along with one unknown person were consuming liquor and charas in the premises of the temple after which the applicant stopped them from doing so otherwise he would make police complaint, due to the said reason, the husband of the informant and his unknown companion had beaten the applicant and had ran away when the applicant became unconscious. Subsequently they accepted their mistake and tendered unconditional apology but later on the present FIR has been lodged falsely implicating the applicant. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 23.4.2025.

¶13

Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR, in the statements of the victim and there is an allegation of sexual assault on the victim. Even there is an allegation of enraging the modesty of the victim. In so far as the defence of the applicant is concerned, the same is totally ill-founded and without any basis and credible evidence. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected.

¶14

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is aged about seven years minor girl. The applicant is named in the FIR and also in the statements of the victim in which sexual assault has been alleged against him. There is no credible reason for false implication of the applicant.

¶15

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected .

¶16

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶18

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamlal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vaibhav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nikhat Parveen and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Banti Rajput vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ansab vs State of U.P. and 3 Others