Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143906 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10841 of 2024 Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Sonkar Alias Anil Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Yadav,Nitin Sharma,Rajeev Kumar Saxena,Shyam Babu,Smt. Ushma Mishra,Virendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Brij Bhushan Upadhyay,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Brij Bhushan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Satendra Kumar Sonkar @ Anil Sonkar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0117 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, registered at P.S. Sarai Inayat District Prayagraj. 4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33901 of 2023 (Satendra Kumar Sonkar @ Anil Sonkar Vs. State of U.P.). 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that charge in the matter has been framed on 19.10.2023. It is further submitted that as per charge sheet, there are 12 witnesses to be examined but only one witness has been examined till date. It is submitted that the sole witness examined before the trial court as PW-1 is the prosecutrix/victim who in her cross examination has stated to a question to her that while returning from Anamika Garden where and which vehicle Satendra Sonkar dropped her to which she stated that when she regained unconsciousness after the incident she stated of going back of which Satendra, Ravi and Raj Kumar threatened her with a gun which they were carrying and called her down in the hotel from where her ID was taken and then from the way they came to metalled road from where on a bike they came of Andawa crossing where they dropped her. It is submitted that at that time on the way, the victim did not resist or oppose it which goes to show that she is a consenting party. It is submitted that by appreciating the said statement it appears that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023. It is submitted that the trial is concerned, the same is going on in which the victim has been examined as PW-1 who has supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that no fresh and new ground argued in the present bail application. It is submitted that the appreciation of the evidence in a bail application is not proper and the same is to be done by the trial court at the appropriate stage. It is submitted that the bail application be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present bail application is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 02.08.2023, the same reads as under: "1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri S.R. Verma and Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocates on behalf of the first informant is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.R. Verma and Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Satendra Kumar Sonkar @ Anil Sonkar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 117 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 08.05.2023 by the victim herself against the applicant on 08.05.2023 alleging therein that she is a resident of Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh and is living in a rented room in Katra, District Prayaraj and preparing for competitive examinations. She met Satendra Kumar Sonkar @ Anil Sonkar the applicant in a cyber cafe who introduced himself as Reporter of DD News channel. He told her that he has good contacts and can get her clear in examinations and shared his mobile number. She called him on which he told her to come to Andhawa as on the said day he was having his birthday, he will give a party and will also get her CCC form filled. On considering the said statement to be true, on 04.05.2023 at about 12.30 pm she was taken by the applicant to a guest house near Andhawa crossing on a motorcycle with his friend Raj Kumar. In Anamika Garden, Andhawa the applicant asked for her ID for filling her form and after sometime took her on the second floor of the said guest house, disrobed her forcibly and committed rape. She went to the Police Station Sarai Inayat to lodge a first information report but the same could not be lodged and her medical examination was not got done. She then gave an application to the higher police officials to get her report lodged. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the version as stated in the first information report. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there are slight contradictions wherein she has added that the applicant gave her water to drink in the room of the guest house after which she became unconscious and then the applicant committed rape upon her. It is argued that the same is an improvement in the prosecution case. Learned counsel has argued that on the own showing of the victim although the applicant had given his mobile number but she had called on his phone and had accompanied him to the guest house. It is argued that the applicant is not involved in the present matter. It is argued while placing paragraph 16 of the affidavit that as a matter of fact the prosecutrix obtained the mobile number of the applicant through net for doing friendship and thereafter she pressurized him for getting married and when he was not ready she blackmailed him and then lodged the present first information report. It is argued that the incident in the present case is of 04.05.2023 but the first information report has been lodged on 08.05.2023 which is after a period of four days for which there is no plausible explanation regarding delay in lodging of the first information report. It is argued that the victim is a major girl aged about 22 years as stated by her in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the present case is a case of consent. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 and is in jail since 22.06.2023. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report, statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there are allegations of his misleading the victim on the pretext of getting her some job and then committing rape upon her. 7. Learned counsel for the State has argued that medical examination of the victim supports the prosecution case in as much as the doctor while examining her internally has specifically mentioned that hymen was not found intact, there are signs of inflammation present, it is red in colour and there is oedema also present in it. It is argued that even in the supplementary medico- legal report the doctor has opined that there are signs suggestive of recent forceful penetration of vagina however final opinion is reserved pending availability of FSL report but in so far as physical assessment and physical examination of the victim is concerned, the said opinion was conclusive regarding sexual assault. It is argued that as such the medical evidence also corroborates with the prosecution case. It is further argued that in so far as the delay in lodging of first information report is concerned, the same is duly explained in the first information report itself and even in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she had attempted to lodge a first information report earlier but the same was not lodged by the concerned police station and even her medical was not done. Later on, when she moved application to various higher officials and authorities then her first information report was lodged. It is argued that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. There are allegations of his committing rape with the victim. The medical examination of the victim supports the prosecution case. The supplementary medico-legal report is also suggestive of recent sexual assault on her. There is no ground for false implication. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected." 8. The ground as is being argued regarding the appreciation of testimony of the victim/first informant who has been examined as PW-1 before the trial court cannot be done in an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the same is to be done by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The law on the said subject is trite, the same has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhatishgarh : (2007) 11 SCC 195. 9. In so far as the trial is concerned, the same is going on as would be evident from the fact that the testimony of PW-1 has been recorded wherein she has been cross examined at great length but she has supported the prosecution case. It cannot be said that the trial is not proceeding. No fresh and new ground for bail is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 M. ARIF Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad