Laxman Prajapati @ Chigurdi Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bail application has been filed on behalf of accused appellant Laxman Prajapati @ Chigurdi Prajapati, who has been convicted in Special Sessions Case No.394 of 2020 (State Vs. Laxman Prajapati @ Chigurdi Prajapati & Anr.), arising out of Case Crime No.450 of 2019, under Sections 367, 377, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Goraknath, District Gorakhpur.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, the accused-appellant has committed rape with the victim.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that though appellant is named in the FIR but the informant has turned hostile during trial proceedings and she has not supported the prosecution version clearly and specifically. It is further submitted that the doctor, who has conducted the medical examination of the victim has not given any specific opinion regarding commissioning of rape by the appellant. Submission is that the accused appellant has no criminal history and since hearing of the appeal may take sufficiently long, as such she be enlarged on bail. As per the custody certificate available on record period of incarceration undergone by the appellant is more than three years. The appellant has been convicted by

¶16

CRLA No. 582 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

the trial court in this case under Sections 367, 377, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act and the maximum sentence awarded to him is twelve years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine under Section 4 of POCSO Act.

¶19

Learned AGA has strongly opposed the prayer made for grant of bail on the ground that specific allegation has been clearly made against the appellant regarding committing rape with the victim, who was aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence of the incident and the victim has supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her cross-examination recorded before the court concerned. It is submitted that appellant has already been held guilty by the court concerned and does not deserve grant of bail.

¶20

Upon consideration of the materials placed on record as also the fact that appellant is named in the FIR, the victim has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the appellant informed her that her mother was ill that is why she accompanied, however, during the journey, the appellant intoxicated her and when she lost consciousness, he raped with her and also inserted plastic lid into her private part (the victim's vagina) due to which she sustained internal injuries in her private part, though the informant turned hostile but she stated in her statement before the court concerned that medical treatment was provided to the victim in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, although the victim did not support the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief before the court concerned but in her crossexamination she stated that she had given her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her examination-in-chief recorded on 7.7.2022 under the influence/intimidation of accused appellant and his family members and her medical treatment was conducted in K.G.M.U, Lucknow, PW-6 Dr. Mona Asnani also stated that plastic lid was removed from vagina of victim after operation and bleeding was present in her private parts, the age of the victim at the time of commissioning of offence was about 16 years, this Court is not persuaded to consider the prayer of the appellant for grant of bail in view of the specific findings returned against the accused and the nature of evidence which has surfaced against him. Various arguments advanced on merits would ultimately require deeper consideration at the time of hearing of the appeal, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the accused appellant and consequently, the prayer for grant of bail is refused.

¶21

CRLA No. 582 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23