Surendra Kumar Patel @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

As per office report dated 17.03.2026, notice of the present application has been served personally upon the opposite party no.4/informant. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf.

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Ms. Vijeta Singh, counsel for the High Court Legal Service.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 197 of 2025, under Sections 64, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 3(1)da, dha and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Rajgarh, District- Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 16.11.2025. The first information report was lodged on 18.11.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the ossification test report dated 21.11.2025, the victim was found aged about 18 to 19 years. Placing reliance on the statements of the victim under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., it is contended that the victim was in consensual relationship with the victim. The victim was present at public places, but she did not raise any protest or alarm. The applicant is in jail since 20.11.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

BAIL No. 4013 of 2026

2

Learned AGA for the state and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. According to the ossification test report dated 21.11.2025, the victim was found aged about 18 to 19 years. The victim was present at public places, but she did not raise any protest or alarm. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant Surendra Kumar Patel @ Chhotu , involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.