Raju vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106380

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21412 of 2025

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukti Nath Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Mukti Nath Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on records.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Raju , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 197 of 2025, under Sections 78(2), 333, 123, 64(1), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad.

¶9

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 22.03.2025 by the victim against the applicant and one other person alleging therein that the applicant is her distant relative. For the past few months, whenever she went to school or coaching, he used to ask her to accompany him to various places. On 08.01.2025, finding herself alone in the house, he came there and gave some adulterated water to her and after which she lost her consciousness and then raped her. When she regained her consciousness, she was having pain in her body and then her parents got to know of it and went to his house to tell about it where they were threatened.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that as per school records of the Class-Xth, the victim is aged about 19 years and thus she is major. It is submitted that the first information report has been lodged after about two months and 13 days of the incident for which there is no plausible explanation given. It is submitted that the victim was having a pregnancy which had aborted. It is submitted that the delay in lodging the first

¶11

information report remains unexplained. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 24.03.2025.

¶12

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a major girl. The F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about two months and 13 days, despite the fact that the victim states in it that, after the incident, her parents went to the applicant's house, where they were threatened.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant - Raju , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

The bail application is allowed .

¶24

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Manoj

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. State of U.P.

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

Sajan vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shani Alias Ajay Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P.

Shirowan Singh vs State of U.P.

Rakesh vs State of U.P through Its Principal Secretary (Home)

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P.