Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36573 (ALL)

MONU ALIAS ABHISHEK KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/11071/2025 · 2025-04-27

Krishan Pahal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64997 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11071 of 2025 Applicant :- Monu Alias Abhishek Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kumar,Mohit Singh,Shikhar Neelkanth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. The original ossification test report of the victim is on record, which indicates her age to be 19 years. The original ossification test report shall be returned to the office of CMO concerned, after retaining photostat copy of the same on record. 3. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha and Ms. Sweta Kesharwani, learned counsels for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.856 of 2021, under Sections 302, 394 and 411 IPC, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Buddha Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forced the victim into his house by gagging her mouth and committed rape with her on 22.2.2024 at about 07:30 p.m. The victim was found gasping by her family members in the night. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about 21 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is true that victim has sustained some injuries on her vital parts but the said injuries are simple in nature as only redness has been found on her vital parts. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is a clear cut case of false implication as the victim had gone to her maternal-uncle's house who runs a fair-price-shop and had animosity with the applicant and the said animosity stands established from the Annexure-15, whereby an application has been moved by the father of the applicant to the National Human Rights Commission, Delhi and also there is an application filed by the father of the applicant alongwith several other villagers against him before the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot on 30.1.2019. Learned counsel has stated that even the Human Rights Commission has ordered for inquiry in the said matters against the informant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim is major aged about 19 years old as per the ossification test report. The applicant himself is minor but the police has considered him to be 19 years old. There was an order for ossification test of the applicant also, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 25.8.2024. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said application before the District Magistrate has been over written as the date was first mentioned to be 30.1.2009 and subsequently "1" has been put over thus making it 30.1.2019. 10. Learned counsel for the informant has further argued that there is redness and inflammation on the vital organ of the body and her hymen perineum were found ruptured fresh, as such, the prosecution story stands fortified by the medical evidence. The victim by her looks seems to be minor, although as per the ossification test report she is stated to be 19 years old. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the victim coupled by the fact that the said application sent to the District Magistrate does not find support by any receipt, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 12. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 28.4.2025/ Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad