Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71439 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12385 of 2024 Appellant :- Shivam Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Mishra,Deepak Kumar Verma,Harendra Yadav,Prabhat Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. 2. The Investigating Officer of the case Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, presently posted as Circle Officer, Circle Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, is personally present before the Court in compliance of the order dated 3.4.2025 passed by this Court and he submitted his affidavit explaining the facts in the light of the order of this Court passed on 3.4.2025. 3. In the earlier order dated 3.4.2025, a question was raised that in the instant matter, earlier a final report was submitted by the I.O. but by the order of senior officers / officials the matter was re- investigated and this time charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 363, 366, 504 IPC and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act but the victim of the case was not interrogated in the re-investigation and additional statement of the mother of the victim and witnesses Babu Lal, Jay Kumar, Om Prakash and Ram Khilawan was recorded by the I.O. and charge-sheet was submitted. 4. The explanation given by the learned A.G.A. is to the effect that a circular/guideline was issued to the police officers of the State by their Seniors / Superiors in which there are some directions to the I.O.s not to make further investigation from the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. if there is an apprehension that the subsequent statement can dilute the previous statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and that is why the victim was not interrogated subsequently. Copy of the said circular/guideline dated 29.10.2021 issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh is annexed with the compliance affidavit filed today in the Court. 5. However, since from the subsequent statement of the mother of the victim and other witnesses Babu Lal, Jay Kumar, Om Prakash and Ram Khilawan, the offence was made out against the present accused appellant and that is why charge-sheet was submitted in this matter. 6. Although the explanation given by the I.O., who is present in person, does not appear to be very satisfactory to the judicial mind of this Court but however in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., nothing has been averred against the appellant and the victim has denied from all the allegations made against the present appellant. No doubt she is a minor girl but she nowhere states in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was enticed away by the appellant with intention to forcible sexual assault. 7. Sri Harendra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim states that she left her house out of her own free will and nobody enticed her away. She did not utter a single word against the appellant. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained and the appellant is languishing in jail since since 22.10.2024. 8. Learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused,,this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat, rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 12. Let the appellant Shivam involved in case crime no.25 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Moosa Nagar, District Kanpur Dehat, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 14. The personal appearance of the above-named Investigating Officer is exempted. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad