Dismissed¶15

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

Allahabad HC7 May 2025BAIL/2279/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery J., 8.5.2025 — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2279 of 2025 (Chandrapal v. State of U.P.) — second bail application rejected; offences under Section 354-A, 376(3) IPC read with Section 4(2) POCSO Act; minor deaf-and-dumb victim; custody since 04.12.2022; trial at fag end (status report 07.05.2025); delayed medical examination (about 15 days); gesture-based testimony of victim; cross-examination left to trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is not entitled to bail; the bail application is rejected, considering the nature of rape of a minor deaf-and-dumb girl, custody of about 2 years and 4 months, the trial being at the fag end, and the medical examination conducted after about 15 days. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in custody since 04.12.2022 in Case Crime No.362 of 2022 (Sections 354-A and 376(3) IPC read with Section 4(2) POCSO Act, P.S. Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly), is entitled to bail given that the trial is at the fag end, the medical examination of the minor deaf-and-dumb victim was conducted after about 15 days, and her testimony/cross-examination.

¶14

Court's answer

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Questions put to the victim in cross-examination are a matter for trial and do not, at this stage, furnish grounds for bail.

¶14

Key takeaways

The victim (deaf and dumb) having replied to questions in examination-in-chief by gesture may be sufficient to prove the offence; hence the counsel's reliance on the cross-examination and doctor's testimony is not sufficient to grant bail.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Second bail application under Sections 354-A and 376(3) IPC read with Section 4(2) POCSO Act (Case Crime No.362 of 2022, P.S. Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly) — First bail application rejected on 10.05.2024 — Applicant in custody since 04.12.2022 (about 2 years 4 months) — Trial Court status report dated 07.05.2025 shows 8 of 10 prosecution witnesses examined; trial at fag end — Defence relied on cross-examination of victim (a minor deaf-and-dumb girl) and doctor's testimony; State pointed to IQ expert opinion, vague/complicated cross-examination questions, and medical examination conducted after about 15 days — Held: cross-examination questions are subject matter of trial; victim's replies by gesture in examination-in-chief may be sufficient to prove the offence; nature of rape of a minor deaf-and-dumb girl weighs against release — Bail application rejected.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74596

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2279 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Chandrapal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri S.K. Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This is second bail application. First bail application was rejected on 10.05.2024.

¶8

The applicant has again approached this Court by way of filing present bail application in Case Crime No.362 of 2022 for offence punishable under Section 354-A and 376(3) of I.P.C. read with Section 4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sheeshgarh, DistrictBareilly.

¶9

In pursuance of an order passed by this Court, learned Trial Court has submitted a status report dated 07.05.2025 that out of 10 proposed prosecution witnesses, 8 witnesses have been examined and now statement of 2 witnesses have remained and trial could be concluded within a short period, therefore, trial is at the fag end.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant refers the cross-examination of victim (deaf and dumb girl) as well as testimony of doctor in order to show that no offence of rape was committed.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the bail and submits that there is expert opinion about IQ of victim and questions asked in cross-examination are vague and complicated as well as that medical examination of victim was conducted after about 15 days.

¶12

I have considered the above submission and considering that since trial is at fag end as well as argument of counsel for applicant is not sufficient to grant bail to applicant since not only medical examination was conducted after 15 days which would have its

¶13

own effect but the victim (deaf and dumb girl) has made reply the questions asked in examination-in-chief in gesture which may be sufficient to prove that applicant has committed offence of rape.

¶14

So far as questions asked in cross-examination is concerned, it would be subject matter of trial. Accordingly, applicant who is in jail since 04.12.2022 i.e. about 2 years and 4 months is not entitled for bail, considering the nature of rape of a minor girl (deaf and dumb)

¶15

Accordingly, bail application is rejected .

¶16

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 P. Pandey

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrapal 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