HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8010 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Short counter affidavit along with vakalatnama filed by Shri Iqbal Ahmed Ahmedullah, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 3. The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.105 of 2025 under Sections 64, 351(3) BNS read with and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Dhammour, District Sultanpur. 4. In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 08.06.2025, at about 12 o’clock in the day, the minor daughter of the informant, aged about sixteen and a half years, went around 500 meters to the west of her house to ease herself. There, it is alleged, the applicant raped her. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has alleged the rape committed by the applicant. Later, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she reiterated the same allegation. In the medico-legal examination, no corroborative evidence has been found. The victim, as per the radiological examination, is 19 years of age. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was subjected to medico-legal examination. The allegation against the applicant is of penetrative sexual assault; however, the said allegation stands falsified in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sukh Deo Singh, Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajesh Kumar Gautam (In Fir Rajesh Gautam) .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) view of the medical report of the victim. The medico-legal examination conducted by Dr. Kanchan Lal, Medical Officer, CHC, revealed that the hymen of the victim was found intact, which clearly falsifies the entire prosecution story. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that only statement of the victim is enough. There is no need of any corroboration evidence. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. 8. On due consideration of the facts that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of four days, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 13.06.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the radiological examination showing the age of the victim to be about 19 years, and also the lack of corroborative material in support of the prosecution case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant Rajesh Kumar Gautam be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek BAIL No. 8010 of 2025 2 any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). August 28, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 8010 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench