Allahabad High Court
Ashu Bhadauria vs State Of U.P. on 17 September, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:165984
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27309 of 2025
Ashu Bhadauria
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Avijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sita Ram Nigam
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Avijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sita Ram Nigam, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Ashu Bhadauria, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.224 of 2023, under Section 376, 342, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba.
4. Learned counsel for the first informant states that he has filed counter affidavit in the office on 16.9.2025 but the same is not on record, photocopy of the same has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. Office to trace the counter affidavit and place it on record and make a note in the order-sheet about it.
5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 31.5.2023 by the victim against the applicant alleging therein that she is resident of Mahoba. She is living near Daak Bangla Maidan in a rented room. She knows the applicant since the last one year. He made a false promise to marry and entangled her in his love and sexually exploited her. She became pregnant of three months after which the applicant refused to marry her and stated of getting the said pregnancy aborted. When she refused it, he threatened her and her brother for life. Since the last one week, he had locked her and her younger sister in a room and also tortured her due to which she received many injuries on her body. Somehow she managed to escape from the said place. The applicant is a big gangster and is involved in many cases from before. He is also involved in the murder of a businessman of crusher namely Indrakant Tripathi and has threatened her and abused her. A report be lodged and action be taken.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the present case is a case of consent inasmuch as the relationship between the applicant and the victim was since the last one year which was consensual. It is further submitted that the story of the applicant threatening the victim and establishing forceful physical relationship is false and incorrect. The present case is a case where there was some discussion of marriage between the applicant and the victim which could not materialize. Learned counsel for the applicant to buttress his arguments has relied upon the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand : AIR 2020 SC 4535, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another : 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 901 and Jaspal Singh Kaural Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi : SLP (Crl.) No.4007 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the present case is a case of consent and under no circumstances it can be considered to be a case of rape. While placing para 23 of the affidavit in support of bail application and annexure no.S.A-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 28.8.2025, it is submitted that the applicant is reported to be involved in total number of 16 cases including the present case but in all the cases, the implication of the applicant is false. The applicant is in jail since 3.6.2023.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR, in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation and there are allegations of his committing rape upon the victim. The applicant on a false pretext, established physical relationship with her. The trial in the present matter is going on in which the victim was examined as P.W.1 who has supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that Shivani Sharma, the sister of the victim was examined as P.W.2 before the trial court who has also supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the victim was found to have received 8 injuries on her person in which there are 3 multiple contusions, 4 contusions and one contusion with abrasion present. The doctor opined the same to be caused by hard and blunt object and duration 3-4 days back. Further the doctor in so far as the sexual offence is concerned, has opined that there are suggestive sign of vaginal penetration. The medical examination also corroborates with the prosecution story.
7. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that trial in the matter is going on in which two witnesses including the first informant/victim have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. It is further submitted that the medical examination of the victim shows injuries on her body and also there are signs of sexual assault as per the opinion of the doctor which corroborates with the prosecution story. The applicant is having criminal history of 16 cases including the present case and one case under the Gangsters Act and twice under the Goonda Act and as such he is a man of criminal antecedents, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. In the trial, the victim was examined as P.W.1 who has supported the prosecution case and her sister was examined as P.W.2 who has also supported the prosecution case. There are allegations of sexual assault and physical assault on the victim. The victim was found to have received 8 injuries on her person in which there are 3 multiple contusions, 4 contusions and one contusion with abrasion present. The doctor opined the same to be caused by hard and blunt object and duration 3-4 days back. The doctor with regard to sexual offence has opined that there are suggestive sign of vaginal penetration. The medical examination also corroborates with the prosecution story. The applicant is having criminal history of 16 cases including the present case and one case under the Gangsters Act and twice under the Goonda Act. The applicant is a man of criminal antecedents.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) September 17, 2025 Gaurav Kuls