Sonu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36296 of 2025

Sonu

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Bajrang Lal, Krishna Kanhaiya Soni
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 65

¶6

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶7

List revised. None appears on behalf of informant despite service of notice.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is named in the FIR. The F.I.R. dated 23.07.2025 was lodged by the informant with the allegation that about three months earlier when his minor daughter aged about 16 years was alone in the house, the applicant after alluring her of false promise of marriage committed her rape forcibly and thereafter threatened her for dire consequences, on 22.07.2025 when his minor daughter starts vomit then his wife took his daughter to the doctor for her checkup where it came to knowledge that his daughter is carrying pregnancy of three months. Though in her statements recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS the victim reiterated the version of FIR, but there are some material contradictions in her both statements regarding manner of incident. As per the ossification test of the victim she was found 18 years of age at the time of her ossification test. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of the Court to the report of medical examination of the victim, which examination was conducted on 24.07.2025, wherein she was found carrying pregnancy of four weeks and six days, whereas as per the prosecution version the alleged incident of commission of rape was occurred with the victim three months prior from the date of the lodging of the FIR which came to be lodged on 23.07.2025, thus, there are material contradictions in the version of prosecution regarding date of incident and the medical evidence as the medical evidence does not corroborate with the alleged date of incident occurred with the victim. Thus, it appears that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case with false and frivolous allegations with malafide intention and ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the

¶10

BAIL No. 36296 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 24.07.2025, with no criminal history.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶14

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant-Sonu, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2025, under Sections 64(2), 74, 333, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 5(J)ii /6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police StationThakurdwara, District- Moradabad, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶17

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶20

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶22

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶23

November 25, 2025 Mustaqeem.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN 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?

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

Ajay Rathor vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav Kumar vs State of U.P.

Prince Gupta Alias Prince Madheshiya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Wahavuddin vs State of U.P.

Nirmal Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raman vs State of U.P. and 3 Others