I, Anjani Kumar Mishra aged about 50 years son of Matapher resident of Village – Lakharahaa, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – High School, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the neighbour of the applicant duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this  and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the first bail application before this .  No any other bail application pending before this  or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and three other persons on 22.11.2013 by the wife of the deceased namely Rajpati under section 302/506 I.P.C., on the basis of wrong fact and due to malafide intension. Informant stated in the first information report that the applicant and other accused beaten the deceased by hand and foot at 6:30 PM on 22.11.2013.  The copy of the first information report is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That after the lodging the first information report police reached to the place of occurrence and prepare the inquest report on very same day. That the investigation officer sends the body of the deceased for the post mortem on 23.11.2013 in District – Pratapgarh at 3.00 PM. The copy of the post mortem report is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the investigation officer recorded the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. eyewitness namely Rajpati recorded on 24.11.2013. There are many contradictions in the statement of informant and in first information report. The copy of the statement of informant and eyewitness under section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 collectively to this application. That in first information report made general allegations by the informant but in the statement of under section 161 Cr.P.C. she changes her version and specifically assigned the roll of the accused persons. That this is well proved the informant is not present at the place of occurrence. That the investigation officer recorded the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. after the post mortem report. After the perusal of the post mortem report, the investigation officer of the case changed the first information report version and assigned the specifically roll to the applicant. That the investigation officer record only one eyewitness namely Kalawati, not any other eyewitness under section 161 Cr.P.C. The informant stated in his statement some other villagers are seen the whole incident but she not disclosed any name in the statement. That the eyewitness is sister of the deceased and she is interested witness in the case. That the deceased was heavy drinker and patient of asthma; he was murdered by unknown persons any other place and applicant was falsely implicated in the case crime. That the deceased was always create nuisance after the drinking the alcohol. The applicant is neighbour of the deceased and he was always giving Gali to all of neighbours when the applicant tries to stop him, he was always quarrelling with the applicant. That at the time of incident the deceased and his real brother are quarrelling with each other and create lot of nuisance. When the applicant goes to stop both of them but when the applicant reaches on the spot, he has seen the dead body of the deceased. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That there is no any motive to murder of deceased and same was not stated by the prosecution. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That the applicant has been surrender before the court below on    and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 06.08.2014. The copy of the order dated 06.08.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the applicant in jail since        and has no criminal history. That during investigation, the investigation officer includes the electric and laltain at the time of the incident, in the statement of the informant for the implementation of the applicant in the said case crime. That as per the roster system of the electricity department in the incident area was 07:00 PM onwards at the time of the incident. That the Hon'ble Court enlarged the co-accused of the case crime by order dated 10.01.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 184 (B) of 2014 (Amit Pandey Versus State of Utter Pradesh). The copy of the order dated 10.01.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the applicant is innocent and due to enmity with informant falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.


I, Kashyap  Yadav aged about 22 years son of Shri Brijlal Yadav resident of Village - Mauli, Manau Ka Purwa, Police Station - Kunda, District - Pratapgarh Religion – Hindu, Education– Literate, Occupation –  _____________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 13.09.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 322 of 2023 under Sections 366-A, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C., 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)5, 3(2)5A of the S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) regarding the incident dated 30.08.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 13.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that he had purchased a mango orchard,  where he was living along with his family in a tent. On 30.08.2023, the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was alone in the mango orchard as on 30.08.2023 was the Rakshabandhan festival. The applicant forcefully brought his daughter to old ITI and committed rap with her and after commission, when his daughter became unconscious then he left her outside of the room. When the opposite party No. 2 and others saw that his daughter was in the tent then they after searching found the daughter at old ITI. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 30.08.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 13.09.2023 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 14 day delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 14.09.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 18 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 03.10.2023. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 along with supplementray medical report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 14.09.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded in which he almost repeated the averments made by him in the first information report to falsely implicate the applicant in said case crime. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 14.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 14.09.2023 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report by the opposite party No. 2 and adduced new facts and stated that the applicant sent massage her on her mobile on 30.08.2023 for coming, she denied thereafter the applicant reached at mango orchard and brought her to ITI, where committed rape with her. The daughter of the opposite party No. 2 further stated that she returned to the mango orchard after 15 minutes, where she became unconscious, thereafter her family members reached the mango orchard. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 29.09.2023, in which again changed her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and stated that on 30.08.2023 around 10.30 PM the applicant entered her house and brought her and committed rape with her and she has become unconscious at the gate of the ITI. The daughter of the opposite party No. 2 further stated that she knew the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the opposite party No. 2 and his daughter regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime goes to the root of the case rendering the prosecution case unworthy of any credit and in the instant case. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 656 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C., 3, 4(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)5, 3(2)5A of the S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) against the applicant on 11.10.2023. That the real story of the case is that opposite party No. 2 and the applicant are known to each other. That Rs. 1,20,000/- was given to the opposite party No. 2 as a loan for the purchase of the mango orchard in the year 2022. That the opposite party No. 2 was not returning the money and on the demand of the money given the threat to face consequences of the same. That thereafter the opposite party No. 2 conspire against the applicant and in a well-planned manner falsely implicate the applicant in rape charges with his daughter. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C., 3, 4(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)5, 3(2)5A of the S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3424 of 2023 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 11.01.2024. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case.  the applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.09.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 322 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C., 3, 4(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(i)Da, 3(i)Dha, 3(2)5, 3(2)5A of the S. C. & S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2005) registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Mubarak aged about 58 years son of Umraw resident of Village - Janwamau Deeh, Saiyyadayaseenpur, Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, Education– Literate, Occupation –  Labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 30.05.2022 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 91 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506, IPC regarding the incident dated 16.05.2022. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 30.05.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that on 16.05.2022 the applicant took her minor daughter (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’). And after three days left victim at the house of the opposite party No. 2 and also abused and given a life threat. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 16.05.2022 but the first information report was lodged on 30.05.2022, without giving any explanation with regard to the 14 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on 04.06.2022, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she changed the version of the first information report and added the several new facts and repeated that the victim was returned to her home after three days i.e. on 19.05.2022. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 04.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 06.06.2022 in which she stated that on 16.05.2022 the applicant met with her after calling her at 01.00 hours and stated that he would marry her. Thereafter the victim went with the applicant with her own WILL and resided with the applicant for three days and returned to her home after three days. The victim further stated that the applicant told her that if she told someone, then the victim and her family face consequences. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 06.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statements of the victim and opposite party No. 2 are contradictory and the victim admitted that she went with the applicant to solemnize marriage with him. That till recording the statement of the opposite party No. 2, her husband and daughter, no one said that the applicant committed rape with the victim. That the medical examination of the victim was conducted on 06.06.2022 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 16 to 17 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 29.06.2022. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the victim dated 06.06.2022 along with the supplementary medical report dated 29.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That after around more than 24 days, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 23.06.2022, in which she changed her statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the first time said that the applicant committed rape with her. The victim further tried her best to send the applicant behind bars. The typed copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 23.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell anyone prior to or after lodging the first information report and before & after the recording of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., that the applicant committed rape with her but suddenly she said that the applicant committed rape. That later on, section 376 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 added to the case crime on 23.06.2022 by the Investigating Officer. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 142 of 2022 against the applicant under 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC, and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on 16.10.2022. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to get the monetary benefit, which has been given to the rape victims by the state government. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, which has been explained by the concerned police. That  the applicant and opposite party No. 2 belong to the same religion and the victim, who is the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 and the applicant loved each other and they have been chatting over the mobile phone since long back. That when the opposite party No. 2 and her family members came to about the love relationship of the applicant and the victim they become annoyed and threatened the applicant for implicating him in a false case of victim’s rape. That on 16.05.2022, around 01.00 hours, the victim called the applicant and put pressure upon him to bring her as the opposite party No. 2 and others have tortured her otherwise she will commit suicide. That thereafter, the applicant brought the victim from her house to save her from her parents but when the applicant was threatened by the opposite party No. 2 and her family members, thereafter, the applicant and victim returned to their home on 19.05.2022. That thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 and family members stated that when the applicant settled they would solemnize the marriage of the applicant and victim, therefore the applicant went to the Mumbi to earn the money. That later on, on the basis of the legal advice to take monetary benefits, the false information report was lodged against the applicant. That there no any involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence, the victim is the consenting party and the relation between both is mutual consent. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in this case, the victim had a sexual relationship with the applicant with her own consent. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That against the applicant several false cases have been lodged, which are as under:- Case Crime No. 177 of 2018 lodged under Sections 307, 411, 413, 414, 419, 420 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Case Crime No. 178 of 2018 lodged under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Case Crime No. 42 of 2020 lodged under Sections 2/3 Gangster Act registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was not granted bail. Case Crime No. 115 of 2020 lodged under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Case Crime No. 148 of 2020 lodged under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which the applicant was granted bail by the court below. Case Crime No. 91 of 2022 lodged under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which is the present case. Case Crime No. 175 of 2022 lodged under Sections 174A of I.P.C. registered at Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Pratapgarh in which is related to the present case. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2490 of 2024 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 05.09.2024. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That apart from above mentioned cases, there is no criminal history of the applicant and he has been languishing in jail since 16.08.2024. That the court concerned took cognizance against the applicant on 01.12.2022 and there is no chance of concluding the trial according the provisions of Section 35(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, by which the learned trial court is bound to conclude the trial within one after taking the cognizance of the offense. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 91 of 2022 under 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Fida Hussain Tahamul Hussain aged about 53 years son of Tahamul Hussain resident of Sangam Nagar, Hindusthan Nagar, S. M. Road, Behind Sangam Nagar, Police Chawki, Wadala East, Antop Hill, Mumbai, Maharastra, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Private Job, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/ prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and another on 24.06.2022 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 201 of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.  The certified copy of the first information report dated 24.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that two years before one Sajjad Ahmed son of Samsad Ahmed resident of her Nanihal, gradually made physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. The opposite party No. 2 further alleged that the applicant also raped her many times. The opposite party No. 2 said she was aged about 16 years and had made and sent her video to Sajjad Ahmed under his pressure.  The opposite party No. 2 came to know around two months before that the applicant and another accused are married and had children then she stopped talking with them. Thereafter the applicant and another accused made the video viral among relatives and in society and are threatening her. That the alleged incident which was taken place long back but the first information report has been lodged on 24.06.2022 after two years of the alleged incident, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the informant and her family lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. The opposite party No. 2 shows the incident date two years back to send the applicant behind the bar under sections of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. That on 24.06.2022, the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which she changed her prosecution story and also tried to develop her prosecution story by adding several additional fasle and incorrect facts. The typed copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 24.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the medical of the victim was conducted on 29.06.2022 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned. The radiological age of the victim was ascertained as 20 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 07.07.2022. The photo/tyed copy of the medical report dated 29.06.2022 and supplementary medical report dated 07.07.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has recorded before the concerned court on 05.07.2022, in which she stated that she again changed her story and stated that firstly another accused with her free WILL and later the applicant has relation with her. The opposite party No. 2 firstly denied that there was physical relation between the applicand and opposite party No. and thereafter said the applicant forcefuly raped her. The opposite party No. 2 further stated that the applicant and another accused called her at a nearby river around 10.00 PM and she returned to her home around 11.30 PM. The phototyped copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 05.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 2 regularly changed her statements given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. as such her testimony is not trustworthy. That the real story of the case is that the applicant is resident of the nahihal of the opposite party No. 2 and he has no concern with the alleged incident as alleged against him and the applicant & opposite party No. 2 know each other. That one another villager namely Sajjad, who is the friend of the applicant, and make phone calls to the opposite party No. 2 in the month of November, 2020. That the opposite party No. 2 initially avoided the calls of Sajjad thereafter they started to chat and they both have fallen in love long back and they met regularly with each other and they have a physical relation also. That therafter, the opposite party No. 2 lodged the first information report against Sajjad and also named the applicant only being friend of Sajjad while the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the O. P. No. 2 has a physical relationship with another accused, which she herself admitted despite a false story cooked up by the concerned police and the O. P. No. 2 so far relates to the applicant for obtaining money from the state government, which is given to the rape victim. That the O. P. No. 2 is well aware that she is major in age but she has lodged the first information report saying therein that she is a minor. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. The O. P. No. 2 herself admitted that she had a physical relationship with her own free WILL with another accused of the case crime but the applicant named in case crime being friend of the main accused of the case crime. That evidence of witnesses of fact are full of inter and intra contradictions about the incident and there is a deliberate improvement in the statement of the opposite party No. 2 as to the manner of sexual assault, which can not be relied upon and all the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution are related to one other and hence they are in the category of related witnesses and as such their testimonies can not be relied upon in absence of evidence of any independent witness. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in case, the opposite party No. 2 said that another accused was given the promise to marry and under said promise, her consent was obtained by him for sexual intercourse and it is not possible, even to assume, that the opposite party No. 2 has not given her consent for sexual intercourse to another accused and falsely implicate the applicant in said case. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet No. 307 of 2022 under Sections 375-D, 506 of I.P.C., 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on 22.09.2022 against the applicant. That there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has not collaborated with each other as such the above statement has no legal validity. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not commit the offence. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the O. P. No. 2 with malafide intentions. That the opposite party No. 2 has a saving bank account, where her date of birth mentioned as 01.01.2003 i.e. she is major in age, which is duly proven from the medical report dated 07.07.2022. The photocopy of the bank details of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the trial has been initiated before the learned trial court in which the opposite party No. 2 has been examined as P.W. – 1 on 23.11.2022 and 06.12.2022. The photo/typed copy of the examination of the opposite party No. 2 dated 23.11.2022 & 06.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 211 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh on 08.05.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.09.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 201 of 2022 under Sections 375-D, 506 of I.P.C., 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Mandhata, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Shaharookh aged about 25 years son of Ballu resident of Avnaspur Road, Kanoon Goyan, Bacharaun, Dhanaura, District- Bacharaun, District-Amroha, Religion–Muslim, Education– Literate, Occupation –  labor, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 25.09.2020 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 854 of 2020 under Sections 376, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 regarding the incident dated 05.02.2020. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 25.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that she went to the market with her daughter aged about 7 years, meanwhile the applicant molested her another daughter aged about 8 years. The opposite party No. 2 further alleged that the applicant is the stepfather of the victim has bad eyes for her daughter and previously molested her several times. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 05.02.2020 but the first information report was lodged on 25.09.2020 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the more than 7 months delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 29.09.2020 around 8 months later at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 8-10 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 30.09.2020. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 29.09.2020 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report and adduced new facts, which are unbelievable. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That on 29.09.2020, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded in which several new facts and tried her best to falsely implicate the applicant in the case crime and change the story, which was said by her in the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 29.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 12.10.2020, in which again repeated her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the opposite party No. 2 and his daughter regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime goes to the root of the case rendering the prosecution case unworthy of any credit and in the instant case. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 656 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376(2)(Cha) of I.P.C. and 5M, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant on 14.11.2020. That the real story of the case is that opposite party No. 2 is the second wife of the applicant who had already married and had child with her earlier husband. That after the marriage with the applicant, the opposite party No. 2 has bad eyes on the property of the applicant and she always put pressure upon the applicant to transfer some valuable property to her and also demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from him. That when the applicant denied giving money and property to the opposite party No. 2 then she became annoyed and threatened the applicant to face consequences of the same. That thereafter the opposite party No. 2 conspire against the applicant and in well-planned manner falsely implicate the applicant in rape charges with her own step-daughter. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376(2)(Cha) of I.P.C. and 5M, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the charges have been framed by the trial court but till yet not appeared before the trial court and lingering the trial. That according to Section 35(2) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the trial must be preferably be completed by the Trial Court within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offense, while in the case of the applicant, the case is pending from November 2020. That there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as the trial has not started yet. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 906 of 2023 before Additional District Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 15.07.2023. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case.  the applicant has been languishing in jail since 12.11.2020. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 854 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376(2)(Cha) of I.P.C. and 5M, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Shiv Kumar aged about 37 years son of Shri Dashrath resident of Mahesh Ganj Bikara, Derhava, Police Station - Patti, District - Pratapgarh, Education– Literate, Occupation –  Labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother-in-law/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 12.07.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 268 of 2023 under Sections 363 of I.P.C., 3 regarding the incident dated 07.07.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 12.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that his 16-year-old daughter, who is mentally unsound, and was under treatment left his house on 07.07.2023 around 07.30 PM and when she did not return home. The opposite party No. 2 and others have tried their best to find her but she was not found by them. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 moved an application for lodging the missing report. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 07.07.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 12.07.2023 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 6 day delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on the very same day i.e. on 12.07.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 12.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 04.09.2023 around 2 months later, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the concerned Police Station stating therein that his daughter returned home on 03.09.2023. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 04.09.2023 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report by the opposite party No. 2 and adduced new facts and stated that she left her house in the midnight of 07.07.2023 and reached to Pratapgarh station. When she missed her house than she stopped a riksha pullar, who brought her to his house and thereafter brought her to the house of the applicant. She further stated that the applicant raped her and when he went to Delhi on 01.09.2023 thereafter the victim escaped herself and reached her house.  The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 05.09.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 17 to 18 years vide report supplementary medical report. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 along with the supplementary medical report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 06.09.2023, in which again changed her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and stated that the applicant, his brother and father along with the Riksha Pullar namely Rakesh Chauhan committed rape with her. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell any other name in her statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and later on in the statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C., named all male persons of the applicant’s family. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 294 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant, his brother, father and another on 25.09.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to get the monetary benefit, which has been given to the rape victims by the state government. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, his brother and father, which has been explained by the concerned police. That the victim has been residing almost around two months far from her house but never raised any alarm at any point of time and the prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3424 of 2023 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 12.01.2024. Here it is relevant to mention that the free certified copy of the order dated 12.01.2024 was misplaced by the deponent therefore after obtaining a certified copy, the same is annexed herewith. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case.  the applicant has been languishing in jail since 12.09.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 268 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Patti, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Smt. Kavita aged about 22 years daughter of Shri Sambhu Nath wife of Shri Ravi Yadav resident of Saray Madhai, Deyi Dee Dhaurahara, Police Station - Patti, District - Pratapgarh presently resident of Village – Barchauli, Police Station – Aaspur Deosara, District – Pratapgarh, Police Station - Aaspur Deosara, District - Pratapgarh, Education– Literate, Occupation –  Housewife, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the wife/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 30.07.2022 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 206 of 2022 under Sections 354 (Kha), 504, 506, IPC and 7/8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 regarding the incident dated 16.07.2022. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 30.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that on 16.07.2022 in the night of 12.00 AM, went for a nature call back side of his house at that time the applicant molested the victim and recorded a video and forwarded the same. The opposite party No. 2 further stated that the applicant gave life threat to the victim. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 16.07.2022 but the first information report was lodged on 30.07.2022, without giving any explanation with regard to the 14 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the statement of the victim was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 02.08.2022 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report by the opposite party No. 2 and adduced new facts and stated that on 16.07.2022 around 10.00 PM, she was sleeping with her grandmother at that time the applicant and another brought her in the field where the applicant committed rape and another accued was recording video and later on, another accused committed rape with her. The victim further stated that the applicant told her that if she told someone, they would kill her brother. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 02.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on the very same day i.e. 02.08.2022, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 02.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statements of the victim and opposite party No. 2 are contradictory, the opposite party No. 2 stated that the applicant was alone and molest her while the victim adduced new facts and name in her statement. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 04.08.2022 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 15 to 16 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 05.07.2023. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the victim dated 04.08.2022 along with the supplementary medical report dated 05.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That after around more than one & half months, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 17.09.2022, in which again repeated her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. The typed copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 17.09.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell any other name to his brother i.e. opposite party No. 2 prior to lodging the first information report and before the recording of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and later on in the statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C., named another accused. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 294 of 2020 against the applicant under 354 (Kha), 376-D, 504, 506, IPC, and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 against the applicant bearing Charge Sheet No. 165 of 2023 on 20.06.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to get the monetary benefit, which has been given to the rape victims by the state government. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, which has been explained by the concerned police. That  the applicant and opposite party No. 2 are residents of the same village and belong to the same caste and the victim, who is the sister of the opposite party No. 2 loved the applicant one-sided, while knowing that the applicant is a married man. That a day, the victim expressed her wish and stated that marry with her, on denial of the applicant the victim become annoyed and threatened the applicant for implicating him in a false case of her rape. That later on, the victim builds pressure upon the applicant to be involved in a physical relationship with her otherwise she will commit suicide and the applicant will face consequences of the same. That thereafter, the applicant had physical relations with the victim and later on, she built pressure upon the applicant to bring her and solemnize the marriage with her. The photograph of the applicant and victim showing their love relationship is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That there no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence, the victim is the consenting party and the relation between both is mutual consent. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in this case, the victim had a sexual relationship with the applicant with her own consent. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under 354 (Kha), 376-D, 504, 506, IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 is made out against the applicant. That the co-accused of the case crime namely Brijesh Kumar Yadav moved a bail application before this Hon'ble High Court bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 10263 (B) of 2023 (Brijesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and others), which has been allowed by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 22.03.2024. The photocopy of the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 177 of 2024 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 07.03.2024. Here it is relevant to mention that the free certified copy of the order dated 07.03.2024 was misplaced by the deponent therefore after obtaining a certified copy, the same is annexed herewith. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case.  the applicant has been languishing in jail since 22.12.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2022 under 354 (Kha), 376-D, 504, 506, IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 registered at Police Station – Aaspur Deosara, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Munna Lal aged about 40 years son of Shri Ram Aasre resident of Baramau, Mahraunda, District – Prayagraj, Education– Literate, Occupation –  Labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father /pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant and 4 others including his parents on 13.10.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 153 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B of IPC regarding the incident dated 28.09.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 13.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that on 28.09.2023 in the night of 10.00 PM, went for a nature call in front of her house at that time the applicant and other accused kidnapped the victim and also stated the applicant committed rape with the victim. The opposite party No. 2 further stated that the victim was recovered in the night of 29.09.2023 around 03.00 AM. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations levelled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 28.09.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 13.10.2023, without giving any explanation with regard to the 15 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the aforesaid first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 in retaliation of the first information report lodged by the father of the applicant for the murder of applicant’s mother against the father-in-law and two brother-in-laws of the opposite party No. 2 on 23.05.2018 bering Case Crime No. 417 of 2018 under Section 304 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Soranv, District – Prayagraj, in which during the investigation Section 316 of I.P.C.. The photocopy of the first information report dated 23.05.2018 lodged by the father of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 14.10.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 14.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 2 herself stated in the first information report and her statement that the victim has been recovered on 29.10.2023 around 03.00 AM i.e. after 5 hours of missing of the victim and she also stated that opposite party No. 2 tried her best to find the victim and raided several places in said 5 hours. That thereafter on 20.10.2023, the concerned police prepared a false and fabricated recovery memo regarding the recovery of the victim of the case crime, whereas the opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report and statement, the victim was recovered on 29.09.2023 at 03.00 AM. The typed copy of the recovery memo dated 20.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on the very same day, the statement of the victim was recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she changed the entire prosecution story and stated that her parents were beaten her as such he run away from her house on 11.10.2023 and stayed at her friend house. When she was going to her Nani’s house, she was caught by the concerned police. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 20.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the victim was conducted on 21.10.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor was any other incriminating findings mentioned in the medical examination of the victim. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the victim dated 21.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That on 21.10.2023, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned, in which she changed the prosecution story and stated that the applicant and another kidnapped her and raped her and after one day of the alleged date of kidnapping, she was recovered by her parents with the help of concerned police. The typed copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 21.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. are not collobrate with the medical of the victim in any manner That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That here it is relevant to mention that there are lot of contradiction so far relates to the date, time and place of incident as well as the recovery of the victim. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell any date, time and place of the alleged incident and also she stated that she was recovered after second day of the alleged incident while the concerned police prepared recovery memo regarding recovery of the victim on 20.10.2023. That on 21.10.2023, the investigating officer of the case crime on the basis of the statement of the victim added Sections 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in the case crime and also altered the Section 376 of I.P.C. to 376-DA of I.P.C.. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 144 of 2023 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376-DA, 120-B of IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant and others on 20.11.2023 on which the cognizance has been taken by the court concerned on 27.11.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to take revenge from the applicant’s family. That the opposite party No. 2 and applicant are residents of the same village and on 06.05.2018 the father-in-law and two brother-in-laws of the opposite party No. 2 have murdered the mother of the applicant. That the father of the applicant lodged a first information report lodged against the father-in-law and two brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 on 23.05.2018 bering Case Crime No. 417 of 2018 under Section 304 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Soranv, District – Prayagraj, in which during the investigation Section 316 of I.P.C.. That in said case, the charge sheet was submitted after proper investigation on 19.07.2018 against the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2. That the charges were framed in said case crime against the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 and trial is going on, in which there is full chance that the father-in-law and brother-in-laws of the opposite party No. 2 would be convicted. That the opposite party No. 2 and her family members several times, threatened the father of the applicant to hostile in said case otherwise he face consequences of the same. That when the father of the applicant denied to given statement in the favour of the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2, thereafter whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and her family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant and his family members, which has been explained by the concerned police. That there no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged against him by the opposite party No. 2. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offense under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 376-DA of IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1003 of 2024 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 24.04.2024. Here it is relevant to mention that the free certified copy of the order dated 24.04.2024 was misplaced by the deponent therefore after obtaining a certified copy, the same is annexed herewith. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case,  the applicant has been languishing in jail since 06.01.2024. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 153 of 2023 under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 376-DA of IPC and 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Delhupur, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Gulakhetab aged about 53 years son of Akbaluddin resident of Village - Jafarpur, Post - Kandhai, Hanumangaj, Kehi Madhupur, Police Station - Kandhai, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self employeed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association is affixed to the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 28.05.2021 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 184 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 354-A, 509 of I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology Act.  The certified copy of the first information report dated 28.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that when he was in Rakhaha Bazar, two constables met with him, in which one of them shown the objectionable viral video of a girl. The opposite party No. 2 inquire in the area regarding the said incident then he came to know that the girl shown in the video is local. As the viral video was related to the crime against women hence the first information report was lodged by him. That on 28.05.2021, the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which he repeated the version of his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 28.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 29.05.2021, the unknown girl was identified by the Investigation Officer and thereafter her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the opposite party No. 3 revealed the name of the Sahil and another along with two unknown persons. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 3 dated 29.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 3 stated that she is aged about 18 years and had a love relationship with another accused namely Shyad. On 10.05.2021 around 10.00 PM, when her lover called her then she went to orchard to meet him. At that place, her lover, Sahil, and two unknown persons were present and forcefully raped her. That the opposite party No. 3 only named Sahil, she did not given any other detail about Sahil but without any proper investigation, the Investigating Officer framed the applicant in said case crime due to extraneous reasons. However, there are several persons residing in Village – Jafrapur with the name of Sahil. That the opposite party No. 3 stated in her statement that the Sahil is resident of village of co-accused namely Shyad while the applicant and co-accused are resident of different village. That the opposite party No. 3 refused to get examined medically after she was produced before the medical officer of the concerned hospital on 29.05.2021 without any reason, which was duly supported by her guardian. The denial from the medical by the opposite party No. 3, itself creates doubt upon the prosecution's story. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 29.05.2021 and the radiology report dated 31.05.2021 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That according to the radiologist, the radiological age of the opposite party No. 3 has been ascertained as about 18 years old. That the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has recorded before the concerned court on 01.06.2021, in which she stated that she changed her story and stated that on 10.05.2021 around 10.00 PM she went on the road for a nature call, where 4 four persons including applicant were present and brought her on the bike and raped her and also record the video and also given threat that if she told anyone regarding the said incident then they kill her family member. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 3 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 01.06.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 3 regularly changed her statements given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. as such her testimony is not trustworthy. That the Investigating Officer of the case crime, obtained a certificate from the Headmaster of the school of the opposite party No. 3 and according to him, the date of birth of the opposite party No. 3 is 12.07.2003. The typed copy of the relevant part of the CD mentioning the certificate of the Headmaster is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That when the Investigation Officer found nothing against the applicant thereafter he recorded the statement of the mother & father of the opposite party No. 3 on 28.07.2021 after about 2 and half months later under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they both also tried to falsely implicate the applicant in said crime along with other accused. The typed copy of the statement of the mother & father of the opposite party No. 3 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the real story of the case is that the has no concern with the alleged incident as alleged against him and the applicant did not know the opposite party No. 3. That another accused of the case crime was the lover of the opposite party No. 3 as she herself admitted and they have physical relations with each other. That another accused was always telling about her love story with the applicant and other friends and stated that the opposite party No. 3 is know about each of his friends as he told everything to her, whenever he met with her. That despite the above fact, family of the applicant has enmity with one Mahipat, who have killed the uncle of the applicant on 29.11.2015 as such the deponent has lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 352 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 34 of IPC at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh and trial is pending before the court concerned. That later, Mahipat and his compainons have also fired upon the father of the applicant therefore again the deponent lodged another first information report bearing Case Crime No. 99 of 2016 under Sections 307, 506 of IPC at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh. That Mahipat is politically connected persons and has money & muscular power, when he came to know that applicant is friend of another accused then he conspire against the applicant and his family, the applicant has been falsely implicated in said case crime. Here it is relevant to mention that the opposite party No. 3 and her family members residing under the protection of Mahipat as such they are dancing on his tune. That the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident and not in the viral video despite that the opposite party No. 3 named the applicant in her statement under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., being the friend of her lover. while the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the opposite party No. 3 has a physical relationship with another accused, which she herself admitted despite a false story cooked up by the concerned police, and the opposite party No. 3 so far relates to the applicant for obtaining money from the state government, which is given to the rape opposite party No. 3, which is Rs. 8 Lakhs in case of gang rape. That O. P. No. 2 is well aware that the opposite party No. 3 is major in age but she has lodged the first information report saying therein that she is a minor. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. The opposite party No. 3 herself admitted that she had a physical relationship of her own free WILL with another accused of the case crime but the applicant named in the case crime being the friend of the main accused of the case crime. That evidence of witnesses of fact are full of inter and intra contradictions about the incident and there is a deliberate improvement in the statement of the opposite party No. 3 as to the manner of sexual assault, which can not be relied upon and all the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution are related to one other and hence they are in the category of related witnesses and as such their testimonies can not be relied upon in absence of evidence of any independent witness. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in case, the opposite party No. 3 said that she had a love relationship with another accused, her consent was obtained by him for sexual intercourse and it is not possible, even to assume, that the opposite party No. 3 has not given her consent for sexual intercourse to another accused and falsely implicate the applicant in said case. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet No. 31B of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 354-A, 376-D of I.P.C., 67 of Information and Technology Act, 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of S. C. & S. T. Act on 23.08.2022 against the applicant and others. That there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has not collaborated with each other as such the above statement has no legal validity. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not commit the offence. That the alleged viral video has not been shown to the opposite party No. 3 by the Investigating Officer at any point of time during the investigation and the identification parade was also not conducted to indentify the applicant but due to extraneous, the Investigating Officer, framed the applicant in said case crime. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the O. P. No. 2 and parents of the opposite party No. 3 with malafide intentions. That the fact that the opposite party No. 3 had refused her medical examination after leveling very serious allegations of gang rape against the applicant and others not giving any explanation for the same, indicates the possibility of false implication of the applicant. No justification or logical reason is coming forth from the opposite party No. 3 regarding the refusal of her medical examination. The refusal of the opposite party No. 3 to get her medical examination conducted and give samples indicates the possibility of false prosecution of the applicant and throws doubt on the veracity of her allegations against the applicant. That where the evidence of the opposite party No. 3 was found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material and there being refusal by the opposite party No. 3 to undergo a medical examination, then no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. The onus is always on the opposite party No. 3 to prove and the applicant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. That the case of the opposite party No. 3 is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and the story projected by the opposite party No. 3 is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. That the opposite party No. 3 knew the accused prior to the incident through his lover i.e. another accused. If evidence of opposite party No. 3 is read and considered in the totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition does not inspire confidence. That the opposite party No. 3 denied to have examined medically without reason, which creates doubt in the prosecution story thus the absence of any medical report/examination of the informant would go in favour of the applicant and he is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt. That the Investigating Officer, himself watched the alleged viral and after watching the same and thereafter the pendrive has become part and parcel of the investigation. The typed copy of the relevant part of the CD of the case crime is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That Section 67 of the Information Technology Act has not attract against the applicant and it is further relevant to mention that the alleged viral video, on the basis of which, the opposite party No. 2 has lodged the first information report has not filed along with the forensic report stating that the video has not tempered. That the provisions of Section 67 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has also not followed by the Investigating Officer at time of submission of the alleged viral video in pen drive. For ready reference of this Hon'ble High Court Section 67 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 reproduced under:- 67A Proof as to [electronic signature]. —Except in the case of a secure [electronic signature], if the [electronic signature] of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the fact that such [electronic signature] is the [electronic signature] of the subscriber must be proved.] That the co-accused of the case crime namely Inzaman filed bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 3886 of 2023 before this Hon'ble High Court and he has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.07.2023.  The photocopy of the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1425 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh on 08.08.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 184 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 354-A, 376-D of I.P.C., 67 of Information and Technology Act, 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of S. C. & S. T. Act registered at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.