RAHUL @ PANKAJ v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
/857/2025 · 2025-08-04
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 155638 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 155638 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44918 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 857 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul @ Pankaj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajmal Khan,Prem Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.-408/2023, Sections-376D of IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkarnagar. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Notice to respondent no. 2 served as per the instructions of the leaned AGA.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased victim was in a relationship with co-accused Durgesh. The allegations against the applicant are general in nature. Since the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in earlier sections, therefore, in the added sections, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) has opposed the bail application. He contends that the FSL report supports the prosecution case, as spermatozoa were detected in the vaginal swab. Furthermore, the accused has been evading arrest and not cooperating with the investigation and due to that DNA sampling of the accused could not be done. The samples of rest of the accused have been taken and have been sent to the lab, except the present applicant. Learned AGA contends that the
accused is not cooperating with the investigation, and emphasizes the need for custodial interrogation in light of the grave and heinous nature of the offence. The AGA also points out that the applicant has a criminal history involving four prior cases, which were not disclosed in the bail application. He submits that, in light of these factors, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the applicant’s non-cooperation in the investigation, and his criminal antecedents, the Court finds no grounds for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 4.8.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench