Sandeep @ Muttan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21026

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6735 of 2024

Applicant :- Sandeep @ Muttan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Farooq Ayoob,Anupam Bajpai,Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Seema Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anupam Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.74 of 2024 under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, 376-AB I.P.C. and 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act registered at Police Station- Jahangirabad, District- Barabanki.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 10.03.2024 at 23:22 hours alleging that while the informant's daughter aged 12 years was alone at her home at about 02:00 PM on 10.03.2024, the applicant came there, caught hold of her hand and tried to molest her. When the informant's daughter raised a hue and cry, the informant reached there whereupon the applicant abused her and beaten her with kicks and fists and ran away while threatening her. The informant stated that she had suffered internal injuries due to beating by the applicant.

¶9

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application annexing therewith the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., a copy of her medico-legal examination report, radio-logical examination

¶10

report, her educational certificate and a copy of a charge-sheet. Apparently, the medico-legal examination of the informant was not conducted to ascertain as to whether she had suffered any injuries due to beating by the applicant.

¶11

In the statement of the minor victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that the applicant had caught hold of her hand outside her home, no one was present in the house. The victim resisted and tried to escape but the applicant pick her up on his lap and molested her. The medico-legal examination of the victim was conducted on 28.03.2024 i.e. 18 days after the incident and it mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force. The Hymen was reported to be healed, torn and ruptured. The pathological examination report is negative for spermatozoa and gonococci. As per radio-logical examination report, the age of the victim is about 12 years.

¶12

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that the applicant had picked her up, put her on a cot outside her house and tried to put his penis inside her vagina. Her mother came there and the applicant ran away upon seeing her mother.

¶13

Copies of the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. have not been annexed with the counter affidavit. However, the learned A.G.A. has produced relevant extracts of case diary for perusal of the Court which reveals that in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she did not allege commission of rape by the applicant. The informant's medico-legal examination mentions two simple injuries caused by a hard and blunt object. The injuries suffered by the informant have not been specifically disclosed in the case diary.

¶14

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copies of statements of the informant, the victim and principal of the victim's school recorded by the trial Court as PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3.

¶15

In the statement of the informant, she stated that the incident took place inside her house. In the statement of the victim recorded by the trial Court, she stated that the incident took place inside the house, in the kitchen.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the victim is minor girl aged 12 years, the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature, those are supported by the findings of the medico-legal examination report and the statement of the victim and the informant recorded by the Investigating Officer, the Magistrate as well as by the trial Court. He has submitted that keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident took place on 10.03.2024 and the F.I.R. does not allege commission of rape by the applicant; in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also, she merely reiterated the F.I.R. version and she did not allege commission of rape by the applicant; in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also she did not allege commission of rape; in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she alleged for the first time that the applicant had raped her and she stated the place of occurrence to be outside her house; in the statement of the victim recorded by the trial court, she alleged commission of rape inside her house, inside the kitchen; the incident took place on 10.03.2024 whereas the medico-legal

¶18

examination of the victim was conducted on 28.03.2024 i.e. after 18 days since the incident and there is no explanation for this delay; that the applicant has no criminal history, he is languishing in jail since 31.03.2024 and the statements of the victim and the informant already having being recorded by the trial Court, in case of the applicant's release on bail, there will be no possibility of the witnesses being influenced by the applicant, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶19

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Sandeep @ Muttan be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶22

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 -Amit K-

¶24

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

Sandeep @ Muttan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep @ Muttan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Atul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amreesh Kumar @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Shahban Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others