Bail may be denied in serious offenses like rape if the victim's examination-in-chief supports the prosecution story and physical injuries are present, even if contradictions are raised during cross-examination.

Court No. - 65

(Sr. No.14 out of 205)

1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 18.4.2026.

2. Heard Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.10 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 109, 115(2), 352 BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15699 of 2025. The order dated 9.5.2025 is as follows:-

"1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.10 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 109, 115(2), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim in a mustard field on 05.01.2025 between 6:30 to 9:00 a.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is true that the victim has sustained certain injuries, but they are not regarding sexual violence, rather the said injuries have been caused as the victim had entered the field of applicant alongwith her cattle and brawl ensued between the parties leading to the said injuries.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said injuries are simple in nature. It is a clear-cut case of false implication as the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has categorically stated that the incident was about 2-3 months old and no sexual assault was committed with her, although the applicant had attempted to do so. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is in jail since 07.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor aged about 13 years only and she has sustained injuries on her body part. The medical report indicates that the victim was menstruating since 04.01.2025 and as such, the applicant could not commit the said offence, but it is mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. and also before the doctor concerned that the applicant had tried to commit rape, but could not enter her vital organ, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that as per ossification test report, the age of the victim was 15 years and it is true that she was menstruating at that time, but the instant offence as narrated by the victim falls within the category of rape as defined under Section 63 B.N.S. coupled with the fact that she has sustained injuries on her body which are three in number, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. It is clarified that the obs