Sonu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35345

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2682 of 2025

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Lal Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

¶7

2-By means of this bail application, applicant-Sonu who is involved in Case Crime No. 197 of 2021, under Sections 452, 376 I.P.C., Sections 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the complainant who is father of the victim lodged an F.I.R. on 23.11.2021 against the applicant making allegation inter-alia that on 23.11.2021 at about 12:00 o'clock, when his minor daughter aged about 14 years was alone in the house, his son went to the house to get the mobile phone and he saw that the applicant barged into his house and committed misdeed with the victim. F.I.R. also alleges that the complainant's son is the eye witness of the incident and he immediately locked the room and called the neighbours. Thereafter, information was also given to the mobile police by dialing 112, on which the police reached at the spot and the applicant was apprehended from the place of incident.

¶9

4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of dispute of a land between the father of the applicant and informant of this case. In fact, no such incident took place as alleged in the F.I.R., hence, the

¶10

applicant who is languishing in jail since 25.11.2021 may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that the victim is a minor child, aged about 14 years and the applicant, taking the benefit of situation that the victim was alone at her house, barged into her house and forcibly committed rape upon her. The accused-applicant was apprehended at the spot and the information to the police was also given, who took the applicant to police station. During investigation, victim in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case making allegation of rape against the applicant. It is also pointed out that before the trial court, victim has been examined as PW-2 on 21.02.2024, where she has also made allegation against the applicant giving vivid description, hence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶12

6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that vide order dated 24.01.2025, Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Dehat was directed to constitute a medical board to conduct the ossification test of the victim so as to ascertain the age of the victim and in compliance of the said order, Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Dehat submitted the ossification test report of the victim dated 13.02.2025 wherein the age of the victim was found about 19 years whereas the incident took place on 23.11.2021, as such, it is not in dispute that at the day of incident, victim was a minor child and apart from this, there is consistent averment of the victim in the F.I.R., before the doctor, during investigation as well as before the trial court that the applicant, after disrobing her, committed rape upon her.

¶13

7-The Apex Court, in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, has held that if the trial of the accused has started, his bail should not be granted in heinous offences like murder, rape and dacoity. Since the

¶14

offence is heinous in nature and trial of the applicant has started and victim has made allegation of rape against the applicant as noted above, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is not liable to be allowed.

¶15

8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶16

9-It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Saurabh

¶18

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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