Mukesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144165

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7759 of 2025

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Mukesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.100 of 2019, u/s 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act 2012, P.S. Barhaj, District Deoria.

¶9

This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25.7.2023 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.35706 of 2019.

¶10

Notice was issued to the first informant vide order dated 14.5.2025. As per office report dated 29.7.2025, notice has been served upon the first informant personally but no one appears on behalf of first informant even when the matter is taken up in the revised list despite service of notice.

¶11

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 30.4.2019 by Smt. Rani Devi against the applicant alleging therein that on the day of lodging of the report at about 7 p.m., her two year old daughter was taken away by Mukesh to the market who committed rape upon her. A boy of the locality saw the girl crying and he then took her from the lap of Mukesh and brought her to home. She saw her underwear to be bloodstained. She was taken to the doctor at a private nursing home where they did not accept her, then she has been brought at the police station. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the

¶13

applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that although the victim was medically examined and Dr. Kalpana Rani Gupta was examined as P.W.3 before the trial court but the said doctor has in her opinion after medical examination stated that no definite opinion regarding sexual assault can be given and thus medical evidence does not corroborate with the prosecution story. While placing statement of Girjesh Kumar Tiwari, Inspector recorded as P.W.8 before the trial court that the clothes of the victim and the accused were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory but no blood or spermatozoa was found on the same which does not show that any such incident has taken place. Looking to the said fact and also the fact that the applicant is in jail since 3.5.2019, the applicant be released on bail.

¶14

Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the medical examination of the victim goes to show severe injuries on her private parts. Even the said doctor while being examined as P.W.3 has stated of severe injuries on her private parts which would go to show that there has been sexual assault on her. It is further argued that the victim is aged about 2 years and a child. The trial in the matter is going on in which the victim was examined as P.W.7 who has also corroborated the prosecution story. It is further argued that as such there is corroboration of the involvement of the applicant through the victim and also through medical evidence, as such bail application be rejected.

¶15

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a two year old child. The medical examination of the victim and the statement of P.W.3 goes to show that there were severe injuries on her private parts which would go to show that there has been sexual assault on her. The victim in her statement before the trial court corroborates the prosecution story.

¶16

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected .

¶17

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶19

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Surendra Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rinku Alias Ravi vs State of U.P.

Kapil Tyagi vs State of U.P.

Vijay Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishwajeet vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Monu vs State of U.P.