HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33165 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 2. The applicant-Virendra Chauhan has filed the instant bail application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.559 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 427, 509 I.P.C., Police Station Ghosi, District Mau, during the pendency of the trial. 3. A first information report was lodged by the first informant/victim against the applicant and three others pursuant to an order passed on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the averments that son-in- law (applicant) of the informant's aunt (Mausi) used to visit her house. In the month of November, 2020, the applicant took her away to his house and in the night at about 11:00 P.M. he asked to open the door of her room and when she opened the room, the applicant has established physical relations against her wishes and threatened that he has made video. When her marriage was settled, again on the threatening to viral her video established physical relations on 25.05.2023, thereafter she was married with Sanjay Chauhan. It is also averred that on 06th June 2023, the applicant came to her beauty parlour and had committed maarpeet, who went away after giving threatening. Again on 11.09.2023 in the night, he wrote obscene word on the wall of her beauty parlour. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged to occurred between 01.11.2020 to 13.09.2023, whereas the F.I.R., has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Virendra Chauhan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) lodged on 03.12.2024 without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. He further submits that the prosecution case is false and concocted one and that no offence is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that there is no video to demonstrate that any video has been made. Learned counsel further argued that the victim is major, who had an affair with the applicant and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further argued that according to the medical examination report, hymen is noted old ruptured, which also does not corroborate with the prosecution version.It is thus contended that no offence has been committed by the applicant and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 21.08.2025. It is thus contended that the applicant is entitled for bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has contended that there is specific allegation against the applicant. He further submits that statement of the informant/victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of I.P.C., fully corroborates the prosecution story. He next submits that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been assigned specific role of committing the offence, which version is fully supported by the informant/victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of I.P.C., Apart from the aforesaid, the worker in the beauty parlour of the victim's parlour namely, Nisha and Babita were also interrogated under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have specifically stated that the applicant came to the parlour and threatened the victim. Thus it is BAIL No. 33165 of 2025 2 evident that the applicant was also threatening the victim. 7. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. October 9, 2025 S.Ali BAIL No. 33165 of 2025 3 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad