Dismissed¶¶12

Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2025BAIL/9505/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected for accused in POCSO/SC-ST/IT Act case involving minor victim; court found strong evidence including victim statements, video recovery, and medical report.

What did the court decide?

The facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant exercise of discretion by the court to enlarge the applicant on bail; the bail application is rejected. ¶¶11

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15757

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9505 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Shadab Siddiqui,Ramendra Yadav,Shivani Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Advocates are abstaining from work today. Sri Salman, the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, who is cousin of the applicant, appeared before the Court and requested that his submissions be heard in support of the bail application and the bail application be decided. Accordingly, heard the submissions advanced by Sri Salman and Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.126 of 2024, under Sections 342, 376-DA, 323, 506/34 I.P.C. & Section 5(g)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act and Section 67 (A) of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

¶8

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 23.02.2024 against five persons, including the applicant, stating that on 22.02.2024, the applicant had taken the informant to a grove at about 12.00 noon and he committed the misdeed against her. The other accused persons, who are friends of the applicant, were also present there and they prepared obscene video of the applicant. The co-accused

¶9

Mahendra was pressing the informant by putting his knees on her legs and he also raped the informant. The applicant had prepared the obscene video of the informant at an earlier point of time and he was threatening to spread that photograph virally and under this pressure the informant had gone with the applicant.

¶10

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the F.I.R. allegations. As per the educational record the date of birth of the informant is 01.08.2009 and she was a minor at the time of the incident. In her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the informant reiterated the F.I.R. version. It is recorded in the case diary that obscene video recorded on a pendrive was recovered by the Investigating Officer, which supports the F.I.R. allegations. The victim was taken for medico legal examination and in the statement given to the doctor also, she reiterated the F.I.R. version. The victim has been examined by the learned trial court as PW-1 and in her examination-in-chief, she has fully supported the F.I.R. allegations.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this court by enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶13

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶14

Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Pradeep/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Km. Priya Mishra @ Shweta Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Central Bureau of Invetigation Thru.Superitendent of Police Lko.

Sheela Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Rajput vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiva Pasi @ Ankit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ranjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Lko. and Another