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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Guddu should be granted bail on his second application in Case Crime No.10 of 2021 (Sections 373, 376D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5(chh) 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Barherhi, District Bareilly), considering the victim's testimony implicating him and his detention of about 4 years and 4 months.

Court's answer

Although the defence relied on the victim's failure to recognise the applicant in the later part of her cross-examination, the Court endorsed the State's submission that the victim underwent very lengthy cross-examination continued on many dates and named the applicant as one of the accused who committed the offence of rape on her more than 5 times.

Ratio / Principle

It appears to be a case of human trafficking; even after the referred part of the statement, the victim again stated that she was sold to the present applicant, and the Court was of the opinion that the victim's evidence is substantially against the applicant and in favour of the prosecution case.

Key takeaways

The applicant's period behind bars, about 4 years and 4 months, could not be considered a prolonged detention.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.; order dated 22.4.2025) REJECTS the second bail application of applicant Guddu, accused in Case Crime No.10 of 2021 under Sections 373, 376D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5(chh) 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Barherhi, District Bareilly (first application disposed of 15.04.2024). Per Trial Court status report dated 21.02.2025 (sought pursuant to this Court's order), only 2 of 10 proposed prosecution witnesses, including the victim, had been examined, the trial having stalled because absconding co-accused Rubina was being pursued through coercive measures. Though the victim did not recognise the applicant in the later part of her cross-examination, the Court accepted that across a lengthy multi-date cross-examination she had named the applicant among those who raped her on more than 5 occasions, and that even after that referred portion she reiterated being sold to the applicant, indicating human trafficking; the victim's evidence was therefore held substantially in favour of the prosecution. Custody of about 4 years and 4 months was not regarded as prolonged detention. Bail application rejected.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60010

Court No. - 6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 895 of 2025

Applicant :- Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mangla Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

This is second bail application. First bail application was disposed of on 15.04.2024.

Applicant has again approached this Court by way of filing present bail application in Case Crime No.10 of 2021 under Sections 373, 376D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5(chh) 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Barherhi, District - Bareilly.

In pursuance of an order passed by this Court, learned Trial Court has submitted a status report dated 21.02.2025 that out of proposed 10 prosecution witnesses, 2 have been examined including victim and further trial is not proceeding since one of bail out accused- Rubina is absconding and directions are passed to take coercive measure against her.

Sri Mangla Prasad, learned counsel for applicant submits that in later part of cross examination of victim, she has stated that she did not recognize the present applicant, however, as rightly pointed out by learned A.G.A. for State that victim was subject to a very lengthy cross examination continued on many dates and she has named the applicant as one of accused who have committed offence of rape on more than 5 times in her testimony.

It appears that it is a case of human trafficking also and even after referred part of statement, victim has again stated that she was sold to present applicant, therefore, the Court is of opinion that evidence of victim is substantially against applicant and in favour of prosecution case, therefore, the period behind bar which is about 4 year and 4 months could not be considered as a prolong detention. Accordingly, this application is rejected .

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 P. Pandey

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad