Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Jai Ram - Appellant
Vs.
State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail application No. - 13228 of 2024
Decided On : 05-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Brijesh Kumar and Karunakar Srivastava
For the Respondent: G.A.
The principle of parity in bail cannot be invoked based on incorrect factual submissions, especially in heinous crimes involving minors.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5G/6 - Bail application - The applicant sought bail in a case involving the alleged gang rape of a minor. The victim's statements, corroborated by her mother, indicated the applicant's involvement. The court emphasized that the principle of parity cannot be invoked based on incorrect submissions made in previous bail orders. (Paras 2, 10, 21, 25)
(B) Bail - Grant of bail - The court held that the heinous nature of the crime and the victim's consistent testimony do not warrant bail for the applicant. (Paras 13, 25)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of gang raping a 15-year-old girl, with the incident occurring in a sugarcane field. The victim was found unconscious and had sustained injuries consistent with sexual assault.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the victim's testimony and that of her mother supported the prosecution's case, and the applicant's claim of parity with co-accused was rejected due to factual inaccuracies in previous bail orders.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and the applicability of the principle of parity in granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of parity cannot be applied to perpetuate previous judicial errors and emphasized the importance of the victim's consistent statements against the applicant.
Result: Bail application rejected.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Sri Karunakar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Asif Khan, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and perused the records.
2. This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 660 of 2022, under Sections 376 D.A. I.P.C. and Section 5G/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 11.09.2022 against five persons, including the applicant stating that while the informant’s sister aged about 15 years was going to give food to her grand mother in the other house. The accused persons dragged her in a sugarcane field at about 9.30 p.m. on 10.09.2022 and they raped her. When the informant’s mother and sister reached the sugarcane field looking after the victim the accused persons ran away and the victim was found lying in the field in an unconscious condition.
4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she had been dragged in dark in sugarcane field and she was raped while she was unconscious. Her eyes were closed as such she could not recognize the accused persons, she recognized them from their voices.
5. The statement of the victim’s mother was also recorded and she stated that she had gone to look after her daughter with her other daughter Vandana and she had seen the accused persons inside the sugarcane field. Upon seeing her coming, the accused persons ran away and she found her daughter lying unconscious in the sugarcane field.
6. The medico legal examination report of the victim mentions that vaginal bleeding was present and the victim had pain in genitals. Hymen of the victim was freshly torn and there were signs of use of forceful penetration of vaginal.
7. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that all the accused persons had raped her due to which she had fallen unconscious. The victim was taken to the Community Health Centre, Mohammadi, from where she was referred to the District Hospital Lakhimpur Kheri. When her condition could not improve, she was referred to Lucknow, where she remained admitted till 13.09.2022.
8. A copy of the statement of the informant recorded by the trial court has been annexed with the bail application and he has fully supported the F.I.R. version. The victim has been examined as PW-2 and she has also supported the F.I.R. version in her examination-in-chief. However, in her cross-examination she stated that she could not see the culprits.
9. The victim’s mother has also been examined by trial court as PW-3 and she has supported the prosecution case. Even in her cross- examination she has categorically stated that she had seen the applicant running away from the place of incident.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that two co-accused persons namely Nikhil and Vimal have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this court by means of orders dated 28.08.2024 and 21.02.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.5494 of 2024 and 11145 of 2024.
11. The first bail application of co-accused Vimal was rejected and the second application has been allowed on the ground that the victim has turned hostile.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the victim has stated in her cross-examination that she could not see the culprits, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. The learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the offence committed by the applicant is heinous in nature and he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail by this court.
14. A perusal of the statements recorded by trial court indicates that the informant has supported the F.I.R. version and stated that when he reached the spot, her sister
