Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2025BAIL/4318/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a rape case involving a minor victim; court noted delayed FIR, absence of injuries, ossification report showing victim aged about 18 years, and granted bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45857

¶2

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4318 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

List has been revised.

¶5

Heard Sri Avinash Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 10.02.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0194 of 2024, under Sections 65(1) BNS and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act Police Station Agauta, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have raped the victim in the agricultural field on 19.09.2024 at about 10:30 p.m.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is next stated that the victim has not sustained any injury to corroborate the prosecution story. The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major, although as per ossification test report also, her age has come out to be 18 years.

¶10

The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶12

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself

¶13

cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶14

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Jitendra , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶18

(ii) 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 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.4.2025/Sumit S

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vimlesh Dubey @ Rahul Dubey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harsh @ Harish vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Uttam @ Vimal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lantesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinay Alias Sahwag vs State of U.P. and 3 Others