Shiv Baran Alias Nanhu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

This application for bail has been moved in the aforesaid criminal appeal arising out of Sessions Trial No. 799 of 2015 relating to Case Crime No. 145 of 2015, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Nigohan, District - Lucknow.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-

¶22

CRLA No. 2177 of 2025

¶23

2

¶24

applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as Rs.35,000/- was due on father of the victim but he was not returning the same and when applicant insisted for the same, he was implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, on 2.6.2015 at about 11:00 P.M., victim who is deaf and dumb informed to her father that she was physically abused by the applicant. He also submits that victim in her deposition stated that they made physical relation once but in the medico legal report doctor has opined that fetus was aborted prior two days from the date of medico legal examination. He also submits that victim was medically examined on 3.6.2015 and as per the ossification test, age of the victim was found about 18 years at the time of incident but all these evidence were not considered by the learned trial court and convicted the applicant on the basis of presumption. He also submits that he was on bail during the course of trial and is ready to cooperate in the hearing of appeal, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that learned trial court appreciated the evidences in correct prospective but he does not dispute this fact that in the deposition, victim admitted that applicant made physical relation once with her and doctor also opined that two days prior from the date of medico legal examination, fetus was aborted.

¶26

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicants, learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as the judgment of the court below, it is evident that doctor opined that two days prior to the date of medico legal examination, pregnancy was terminated and the victim in her deposition also stated that applicant made physical relations once but all these facts were not considered by the learned court below. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to grant bail to the applicant-appellant till the outcome of the instant appeal.

¶27

Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed .

¶28

Let the applicant-appellants, namely, Shiv Baran Alias Nanhu be

¶29

CRLA No. 2177 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

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 following conditions;

¶32

(i) The appellant-applicant shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶33

(ii) The appellant-applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶34

As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶35

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶36

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶37

January 5, 2026

¶38

GauraV/-

¶39

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Baran Alias Nanhu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Baran Alias Nanhu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Subrati Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Abhishek Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ms. Sunita Devi Widow and Ors. Vs Union of India through General Manager North Central Railway

Munna @ Arvind Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Ram Tirath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Kapil Awasthi @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others