Dhirendra Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5064 of 2025

Dhirendra Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Gangeshwar Pandey, Mrs.Suniti Sachan, Shashwat Patel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ashuja Gupta, Mayur Gautam Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶9

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Mayur Gautam, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶10

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.76 of 2025, under sections 65(2) BNS, Sections 5M/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District Raebareli.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that daughter of the informant aged about 11 years was studying class 3 in a school and used to go to school on a bus. However she refused to go to the school and when insisted she informed that driver of the bus has committed wrong on her on 5.4.2025 at a place near the canal. The FIR was lodged on 9.4.2025. The medial examination was done where the tentative age of the victim was disclosed as 11 years. It was also recorded that the victim has not attained menstrual cycle. In the medial examination dried blood was present on the private parts of the victim, the hyman was found to be torn and bleeding was present.

¶12

4. In the light of the said allegations the submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no definite document with regard to exact age of the victim as in one of the document the date of birth is different and in school record the date of birth is different. She further argues that even in

¶13

BAIL No. 5064 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

terms of statement that the brother of the victim was also alongwith him it is highly improbable that she was taken to a separate place and wrong was committed on her. Therefore, it is argued that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State strongly oppose the bail application by arguing that the medical on record sufficiently corroborates the allegations and the delay in lodging FIR is understandable in view of age of victim. Thus according to them the bail application should be rejected.

¶17

6. Considering the submissions made at the bar and in terms of allegations specific allegations of wrong being committed was made which are wholly corroborated by medical on record. The age of the victim is certainly less than 11 years keeping in view medical which demonstrated that the menstrual cycle has not even started. The delay in lodging FIR is not unexplained keeping in view the age of the victim, as such no case for bail is made out.

¶18

7. The bail application is rejected.

¶19

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶20

November 27, 2025

¶21

J. K. Dinkar

¶22

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhirendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 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

Shesh Ram Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rehan Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Inderjeet Tiwari @ Dasau vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Nivas Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Shanawaj Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Hridyaram @ Hridayaram and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another