HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8225 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 02.06.2025, while the informant’s minor daughter, aged about 16 years, had gone to ease herself, the accused Shivam, finding her alone, allegedly dragged her into a nearby jungle, intimidated her, subjected her to rape, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. It is further alleged that on 03.06.2025, the victim narrated the incident to her mother and thereafter to the informant. When the informant confronted the accused persons, they allegedly assaulted him while being armed with weapons, and Mukesh, while showing a pistol, allegedly threatened to kill both the informant and his daughter. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of two days. It is contended that the prosecution version is inconsistent in the FIR, in the complainant’s statement, in the victim’s statement under Section 180 BNSS, as well as in her statement under Section 183 BNSS. The timing of the information has also been altered. It is further submitted that although the victim was allegedly dragged to the jungle by force, no injury marks were found on her body, and the medico- legal examination does not give any opinion suggestive of rape. 4. It has also been argued that though the victim stated before the doctor that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Vikram Singh, Abhishek Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Desh Ratan Mishra Shivam Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) she was raped at gunpoint, no gun was recovered from the applicant during investigation. The three alleged eye-witnesses, namely Chatrapal Arakh, Sandeep Singh, and Jaiveer Singh, are family members of the victim, and all have given verbatim statements. It is contended that due to enmity between the families, false implication cannot be ruled out. Moreover, despite claiming to be eye-witnesses, they did not make any attempt to rescue the victim, which, according to the defence, casts doubt on the prosecution version. The complainant’s allegation of being badly beaten is also false. 5. It is further submitted that prior to the present incident, the victim had expressed her desire to leave home and was found at a bus stop. The applicant’s family members had informed the police on helpline number 112 regarding the victim’s attempted escape, and the receipt of such call is on record. The applicant has also explained his criminal history of one case in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit. 6. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, has opposed the bail application, submitting that there are eye-witness accounts supporting the prosecution case, the victim’s statement is consistent, and the victim is a minor. Though the investigating officer did not conduct radiological examination, the school records reflect her age as 16 years, 11 months, and 25 days. 8. Learned AGA has also opposed the bail application. 9. Upon due consideration of the improbable allegations made in the prosecution case, absence of corroborative medical evidence, and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed on 09.07.2025 and the applicant is in custody since 05.06.2025, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant Shivam Singh involved in Case Crime No.- 136/2025, U/s-64(1), 351(2) BNS & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali Dehat, District - BAIL No. 8225 of 2025 2 Sitapur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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 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 in accordance with law. (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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. September 3, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 8225 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench