Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 73686 (ALL)

VIJAY HELA v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/24556/2025 · 2025-07-16

Samit Gopal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115558 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24556 of 2025 Applicant :- Vijay Hela Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Deo Shukla,Vivek Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Vijay Hela, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 30 of 2024, under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506, 376 IPC, registered at P.S. Koraon, District Prayagraj. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 08.02.2024, under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506 IPC by the victim alleging therein that her family members had gone to attend wedding wherein the applicant came inside the house on 06.02.2024 at about 12:00 am and tried to force sexual assault on her and on opposing it assaulted her. He then tried to tie her mouth with scarf. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim has reiterated the version of the FIR in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she for the first time states that the applicant after entering the house, tore her clothes, pushed her and inserted his hand in her private part and even bit her breast. When she opposed it he hurled abuses. It is submitted that the said prosecution case is not consistent inasmuch as the allegation of sexual assault has been stated for the first time in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim. It is submitted that the victim is a married major woman. It is further submitted that the FIR in the matter has been lodged after two days of the incident for which there is no plausible explanation. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 30 of the affidavit and is in jail since 20.05.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim was medically examined on 09.02.2024 and the doctor found three injuries on her person which corroborates with the prosecution story and the duration of injuries has been opined by the doctor as 2-3 days old which also corroborates with the prosecution story. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant in the present case is based on correct and true facts. It is submitted that as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. The victim was medically examined on 09.02.2024 and was found to have received three injuries on her person. The said injuries are as under: "1. Laceration Y shaped extending from posterior vaginal mucosa to post fourchette to skin about 3cm x 0.1cm x 0.1cm. Bleed on touch skin edge healing about 2-3 days old. 2. Second arm of laceration about 3cm in labia majora 3cm x 0.1cm x 0.1cm healing about 2-3 days old on left side. Both caused by blunt object. 3. C shaped abrasion 6cm x 0.5cm above at right nipple teeth marks, caused by blunt object 2-3 days old." 8. The injuries although were opined to be simple in nature and to be caused by blunt object but the duration of the same is 2-3 days old which corroborates with the prosecution story. The nature of injuries fully corroborate with the version given by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. No ground for bail is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 17.7.2025/M. ARIF Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad