HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8322 of 2024 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.None appears for the complainant although notice has been served. 2.Order dated 2.8.2024 passed by this court is extracted below : "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent State. In the prosecution case it is alleged that three days' back the son of the informant was taken by the applicant with the aid of accused no.2 near the parking in the store room where indecent behaviour and talks were done to her son. Upon refusal by the victim he was threatened by the applicant that if he tells anyone he will chop up his neck. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the First Information Report was registered on 26.2.2019. He has not been arrested till filing of the police report/final report. During further investigation also he was not arrested and immediately before filing of the charge-sheet on 22.5.2024 he was arrested and send to jail. There was no need to arrest the applicant once he has cooperated in the investigation. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgements reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 Siddharth vs. State of U.P. and others and (2018) 3 SCC 22, Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and others. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal history. Initially, investigation was conducted and final report was filed as there was no evidence. He submits that the applicant was a driver. He has no access to the store room. The Police thoroughly investigated the matter and CCTV footage. After finding no evidence of crime, final report was filed. The complainant after closer of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Vikram Singh, Abhiuday Pratap Singh, Baljeet Singh, Desh Deepak Singh, Jagjeevan Prasad, Prabhat Kumar Pandey, Ravi Prakash Nigam, Rohit Kumar, Sandeep Kumar Pal, Sudhir Kumar, Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rohit Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) investigation filed the protest petition. Upon which further investigation was directed and during further investigation, after five years of the incident, for the first time Section 377 I.P.C. has been added without there being any material collected by the investigating Officer to attract Section 377 I.P.C. Learned A.G.A., at this stage, prays that she may be granted some time to seek instructions in the matter. As prayed, three days' time is allowed to learned A.G.A. to seek instructions in the matter. List on 9.8.2024 as fresh." 3.Learned A.G.A submits that during further investigation, considering the statement of the victim and corroborative injuries found on the person of the victim in her medico legal examination the investigating officer has added section 377 I.P.C.. Charge sheet has been filed. 4.I have perused the record as also statement of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC and medico legal report of the victim which is extracted below : "Injury-blakish Redness present on area of 2x2 cm on b/b side anus 7-8 days old. Opinion : Above injury is caused by hand and blunt object. Simple in nature. Duration about 7-8 days older. 5.Statement of the Doctor has been filed along with the counter affidavit, which corroborates the prosecution case. Report of trial court dated 18.8.2025 has been received, according to which four prosecution witnesses including the victim and complainant have been examined. Only three formal witnesses were left to be examined till submission of the report from the special court. At this stage, applicant's counsel has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record statement of the prosecution witnesses examined so far where the victim has been examined as P.W.1 who again has supported the prosecution story. 6.A perusal of the statements of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, corroborative injury on the private part of the victim, statement of doctor and again examination of the victim before the trial court shows prima facie complicity of the applicant. It is a heinous offence. BAIL No. 8322 of 2024 2 7.No case for bail is made out and accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. In case the formal witnesses have not been examined yet, the trial court is directed to examine them expeditiously, if possible on day to day basis. October 15, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 8322 of 2024 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench