Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 203340 (ALL)

MONU PANDEY @ SHIVAM PANDEY v. STATE U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

/12411/2025 · 2025-12-12

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12411 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.410 of 2025 under sections 65(2), 76, 127(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, and section 5(M)/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Sandi, District Hardoi. 3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant had gone for purchasing something, when the applicant allegedly taken her and started misbehaving with her. The age of the victim is around seven years. The medical on record indicates the hymen to be torn and absent and, a view was formed that there is evidence of recent penetration. Subsequently, the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the medical officer, which indicates that the hymen was normal and no bleeding or discharge was seen at the time of the examination. 4. The counsel for the applicant states that there are apparent contradictions in the two reports and once the medical officer is of the opinion that the hymen was normal and no bleeding was present, a case for bail is made out. 5. In the light of the said, this court had called the learned AGA to explain the inconsistencies. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Monu Pandey @ Shivam Pandey .....Applicant(s) State U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Today, Sri Sushil Kumar, Sub-Inspector/IO PNO No.231272320, present in the court, explains that the statement of the doctor on record contains the apparent typographical errors for which the suitable diretions have been issued. The said statements given across the Bar are taken on record. 7. Considering the medical on record which indicates the presence of evidence of recent penetration and the age of the victim which is around seven years, no good ground for bail is made out. 8. The bail application is rejected. 9. It will be open for the applicant to revive his bail plea after the statement of the victim and the medical officer is recorded. December 12, 2025 VNP/- BAIL No. 12411 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ BHATIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench