Allahabad High Court
Indal Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 October, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176505
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54052 of 2023
Indal Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Awashesh Kumar, Kalp Dev Mishra, Kush Kumar Pandey, Sulabh Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Sulabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.
3. Notice was issued to the first informant vide order dated 17.2.2025. Office vide its report dated 01.4.2025 reported that notice has been served personally on the informant as per the report of C.J.M. concerned which is dated 26.3.2025. Despite service no one appears on her behalf even in the revised list. Service of notice is thus sufficient.
4. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Indal Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 56 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Dullahpur, District- Ghazipur.
5. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22799 of 2023, Indal Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.7.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing page-19 of the supplementary affidavit dated 09.09.2024 being the statement of the victim recorded as P.W.-2 in the trial, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the said witness and has submitted that the said witness has stated that her date of birth as recorded in the school records is 01.01.2006 but as a matter of fact she was born on 13.10.2005. It is submitted that thus the date of birth as mentioned in the High School Marks-sheet is incorrect and the correct date of birth of victim is 13.10.2005. It is submitted that the victim has stated in cross-examination that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will and thus the present case is a case of consent. It is submitted that in the trial three prosecution witnesses namely Seema Devi the first informant has been examined as P.W.-1, the victim has been examined as P.W.-2 whose statements have been annexed as annexure no. S.A.-1 to the said supplementary affidavit, and the other witness namely Dr. Neha Sonkar has been examined as P.W.-3 whose statement has been annexed as annexure no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 19.09.2025. It is submitted that trial is not progressing in proper manner and is proceeding very slowly as would appear from the fact that only three witnesses have been produced before the court and examined so far and thus it would take a lot of time. It is submitted that looking to the statements of the witnesses and further the stage of trial and slow pace of trial, it would be proper to release the applicant on bail.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in so far as High School Certificate is concerned, date of birth of the victim recorded therein is conclusive and the victim was not a witness whose statement would, in any manner, discard the date of birth as mentioned in the High School Marksheet wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.2006. It is submitted that the victim merely stating that her date of birth is 13.10.2005 will not render the date of birth recorded in the High School Marksheet and in the school records as false. It is further submitted that trial is under progress in which three witnesses have been examined in which the first informant and the victim have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that no fresh and new ground is pleaded or argued by the applicant and hence the present bail application be rejected.
8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 20.7.2023. The said order reads as under:-
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. Notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 19.6.2023. As per office report dated 19.7.20223, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2 through her husband and further notice has been served on opposite party no. 4 through office. Despite service of notice on opposite party Nos. 2 & 4, no one appears on their behalf even in the revised list.
4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Indal Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 56 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 5L/6 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Dullahpur, District Ghazipur.
5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 10.04.2023 under Sections 363 & 366 IPC by Smt. Seema Devi against the applicant alleging therein that her daughter aged about 17 years having date of birth as 01.01.2006 was made a false promise to marry by the applicant. On 07.04.2020 at about 8:00 PM, applicant lured her daughter and enticed her away.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she and the applicant were studying together in a coaching where they came in contact with each other. The applicant on false promise to marry used to establish physical relation with her and used to tell her to run away. On 07.04.2023, the applicant took her away to Banaras where he established physical relation with her many times and since money had finished, they were returning back home for collecting money but they were apprehended and brought to the police station. It is argued that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim reiterated the same. She further stated that the applicant has made a promise to marry her and then they made physical relation with each other. It is argued that as such the victim was consenting party and no offence is made out. It is lastly argued that the applicant is in jail since 11.04.2023, having no criminal history as stated in para-16 of the affidavit.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per version of the FIR and the mark-sheet of the year 2022, the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2006, as such, at the time of incident, she was a minor. It is argued that since the high school mark-sheet is a conclusive proof of the date of birth as per law, and victim is a minor as per the date of birth recorded therein. It is argued that as such her consent cannot be considered and it cannot be said that she was a party consenting to him.
8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that as per high school mark-sheet, the victim is minor; applicant was named in the FIR; statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein, there are allegations against the applicant of establishing physical relations many time; consent of minor is of no worth.
9. 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."
9. The ground that the victim stated her date of birth as 13.10.2025 in her cross-examination cannot be appreciated and looked into as the date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate is conclusive date of birth of a person. The first informant and the victim have been examined before the trial court who have supported the prosecution case. In the trial three prosecution witnesses have been examined and is under progress. No fresh and new ground exists.
10. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) October 6, 2025 Naresh