I, Naveen Saroj aged about 28 years son of Shri Kailsh Saroj resident of 95, Tina, District - Pratapgarh, Education – Literate, Occupation – _____________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the ___________/paikor of applicant and duly authorized by the applicants 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 photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That the applicant filed the abovementioned bail application for granting bail in Case Crime No.  75 of 2023 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506. 325 I.P.C. registered at Police Station - Leelapur, District -Pratapgarh. That this Hon'ble Court has considered the bail application of the applicant and granted the bail, which was moved by the applicants, on 16.05.2024. That due to advertently due to typographical mistake word “under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.” typed in place of “under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C.”, in the second line of the second paragraph, in the order dated 16.05.2024. The photocopy of the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That it is further submitted that there was no any error in the bail application, which was moved by the applicant. That the Hon'ble Court may pleased to allow the correction application to correct the order dated 16.05.2024 by replacing the word “under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C.” in place of “under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.”, in the second line of second paragraph of the aforesaid order, in the interest of justice.


I, Jeet Lal Patel aged about 74 years son of Shri Matadeen resident of Village – Swaroop Pur, Katata, Police Station – Jethwara, District -Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is father/pairokar of the Appellant and duly authorized for doing pairvi on behalf of the appellant in the above-noted case on his behalf and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case 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 second bail application on behalf of the appellant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The bail application was rejected by Hon’ble Shri Karunesh Singh Pawar “J” on 27.10.2023. The photocopy of the orders dated 27.10.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That this is the second bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That a first information report was lodged by the Shri Rambabu Patel son of Shri Sahdev Patel resident of Village – Pooranpur, Police Station – Holagarh, District – Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) against the Appellant on 26.02.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 91 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Jethwara, District – Pratapgarh. That story of the prosecution as per the first information report is in a nutshell is that the informant solemnized the marriage of his daughter namely Reshma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) with the appellant in year 2014 and the appellant was residing in a hut with the deceased separately from his parent. The informant further alleged the appellant tortured the deceased for dowry and on 25.02.2018 he murdered the deceased and himself informed regarding the death of the deceased. When the informant reached to the house of the appellant then he found several injuries on the body of the deceased and he presumed that the appellant murdered the deceased, then the informant lodged said first information report on a presumption basis. That after the improper investigation, the concerned police submitted a charge sheet under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the Appellant. That thereafter on 23.05.2018, the charges were framed against the Appellant, and in which the appellant pleaded not guilty. That after the denial of the commission of the offense by the appellant the trial was initiated and was registered as Sessions Trial No. 198 of 2018 (State Versus Ashok Kumar Patel). That total 7 prosecution witnesses have been produced before the trial court against the appellant while only two witnesses have been produced before him as defense witnesses. That the statement of the PW-1 was recorded on 17.01.2019 in which he repeated his version of the first information report but could not tell how the appellant murdered the deceased, he only gave his statement on the basis of the presumption but when he was cross-examined by the defense on 08.04.2019 he failed to support his prosecution story. That the P.W. 2 & 3 have also in their chief examination supported their statements given before the concerned police but when they have been cross-examined they also failed to prove their prosecution story before the learned trial court. That thereafter the P.W. 1 to 3 have to be declared hostile by the learned trial court but in contrary to the catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned trial court has not declared them hostile and used their chief examination against the appellant. That the informant/PW-1, in his first information report dated 26.02.2018 stated that, the information about the murder of his daughter was given by the informant, which is not believable and this fact has been ignored by the learned trial court and the learned trial court relied upon the examination of the PW-1 to PW-3. That no any eyewitnesses of the alleged incident and the PW-1 to PW-3 were not eyewitnesses they were only interested witnesses and gave their statements on the basis of the presumption before the learned trial court and the learned trial court considered the same. That the statements of PW-1 to PW-3 do not support the prosecution story as their statements have lot of contradictions, but the same has been ignored by the learned trial court. That all witnesses of the case crime gave contradictory statements to each other, which shows that the applicant is falsely implicated in the case crime. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question with which the applicant has no concern in any manner but a false and fabricated story by the concerned police and informant. 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/accused. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. 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 tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant has been in jail since 26.02.2018 without committing any crime. That the office of the Superintendent Jail, Pratapgarh issued a Custody Certificate on 07.11.2023 according to said certificate till the date of issuance of the said certificate the appellant has been in jail for the last 6 years and 03 days, and now till date, the appellant is in jail from last 6 years, 6 months and 25 days. The photocopy of the Custody Certificate dated 07.11.2023 issued by the office of the Superintendent Jail, Pratapgarh is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Jethwara, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of this criminal appeal, in the interest of justice.


I, Kamala Prasad aged about 52 years son of son of Sanehi resident of Village - Sajauli, Police Station - Sujauli, District – Bahraich, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent 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 second bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The first bail application No. 10378 of (B) 2021 was rejected by Hon’ble Shri Ram Krishna Gautam “J” on 13.04.2022 for want of prosecution. The photocopy of the orders dated 13.04.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That this is the second bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 143 of 2020 under Sections 326, 307, 329 registered at Police Station – Sajauli, District – Bahraich on 02.12.2020 at 00.18 hours, against the applicant and two other persons. The first information report is lodged by Shri Dhaniram Pal son of Khushiram Pal resident of the applicant’s village (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 02.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that his mother-in-law Gutti Devi wife of Gayadeen Lal got burn injuries by Kusumawati (mother of applicant/accused) and Mamta Pal (applicant/ accused) and brother of the applicant by Kerosene oil at 5.00 pm on 01.12.2020 in his field of turmeric crops, when his mother-in-law crying then the informant reach on place of incidence with giving alarm but the applicant, her mother and brother run away, the informant arrange the ambulance 102 by help of villagers and send the deceased to hospital after that he go to police station for lodged information report. That this is relevant to mention here that the deceased Gutti Devi is also the mother-in-law of the applicant's mother and grandmother of the applicant and brother of the applicant who are named in the mentioned first information report. That in the mentioned First Information Report informant alleged the story, the applicant due to being annoyed by the land dispute, caused the said incident and caused a burn injury to deceased Gutti Devi. That in the present case the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded by th concerned police and he alleged that deceased Gutti Devi sell out some part of her tenancy recorded in her name deceased not want to give the rest tenancy to applicant' mother due to not maintained the deceased and in this reference some civil and revenue litigation are pending, when applicant's mother asses that deceased not transfer the said land to applicant' mother then on 01.12.2020 at 5.00 pm. applicant's mother and applicant and brother Mohit Lal pour petrol on the deceased with intention to cause death, when deceased cry then informant and his wife reach on the place of incident with given alarm but till then all the accused run away, the deceased is seriously injured the informant and his wife Gungaria see the said incident near the place of incident then with the help of villager through ambulance 108 to send on the deceased to hospital for treatment after that informant lodged the First information report against the accused. The typed copy of the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That in the present case the statement of the informant's wife Smt. Gungaria under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also recorded in which she stated that she is the only daughter of the deceased and the applicant's mother married with her brother Bahraichi about 25 years ago by this marriage her brother had four issues, about four years ago applicant' mother kill her brother by gave poison, but due to little issues and acceptance of guilty by applicant's mother, they are not lodged a criminal case against the applicant's mother, the deceased had 11 Bigha agriculture land in which she gives them 5 Bigha land to applicant's mother and their issues and rest land in name and possession of Smt. Gungaria there is some litigation between the informant's wife and the applicant's mother about the land of the deceased and for said revenge the applicant's mother and applicant with her brother with the intention to cause the death of the deceased on dated 01.12.2020 at 5 pm. applicant to catch the deceased and applicant's mother pour the petrol on deceased and Mohit Pal burn her by matchstick. She saw all the incidence near the deceased, Phoolmati wife of Ranga and Radhika daughter of Ranga cut the grass in her field, Radhika cover the body of the deceased by her stole, the applicant's mother and the applicant, Mohit run away, by the help of villagers informant and Smt. Gungaria carried on deceased by ambulance 108 to the hospital of Mihipurwa and District Hospital Bahraich and from District Hospital Bahraich informant came to Sujauli Police Station to lodge the First information report. The typed copy of the statement of Gungaria is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That in the present case the dying declaration was given by the deceased on 01.12.2020 at 11.53 pm. in the presence of Tehsildar Sadar Bahraich, in which the deceased stated, the applicant's mother and her granddaughter and grandson put on fire to the deceased by which she seriously injured. This is pertinent to mention here that in the statement it is stated she told the grandson and granddaughter to boy and girl, in the whole statement the deceased did not take the name of the applicant and she stated that the applicant's mother killed her husband Bahraichi about four year ago through poison, from the body smell of kerosene oil, due to the issues of agriculture land her daughter in law and grandson and granddaughter put on fire to deceased. The photo/typed of the dying declaration of the deceased is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That the post mortem was conducted on 02.12.2020 at Post Mortem House, Bahraich by the doctor concerned and according to the post-mortem report the anti-mortem extensive burn injury which is 1st and 3rd degree burn anti-mortem burn present all over the body except the perineal area and both feet & soles. 2- Line reduces present, 3-Scalp hair and body hair probably singed. The photo/ typed copy of the post-mortem report dated 02.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit. That the statement of Suraj Pal under section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned police, who is son of the informant stated that the applicant's mother along with her daughter Mamta Pal (applicant) and son Mohit Pal (brother) put on fire as maternal grandmother Gutti Devi deceased by petrol at 5.00 pm. on 01.12.2020 due to the land dispute he is also the witness of inquest report he also stated that applicant's mother cause the death of sister-in-law (her brother wife) in which charge sheet No. 46 of 1997 has been submitted under Section 306 of I.P.C. on 09.10.1997 this witness also submitted the civil suit bearing Regular Suit No. 1327 of 2019 before the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Bahraich which is filed by Gutti Devi against the applicant's mother. The typed copy of the statement of Suraj Pal under section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this Affidavit. That it is pertinent to mention here that Case Crime No. 63 of 1997 Police Station -Sujauli, District - Bahraich was wrongly lodged by the in-laws of the deponent against the deponent and his other family member in misconception, and later on said criminal case was disposed of. That in the present case the statement of eyewitnesses Smt. Phoolmati wife of Ranga under section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated she and her daughter Radhika cut the grass in her agricultural land where the crop of mustered stand and adjacent the agriculture land of the deceased where she cut the grass at 5 pm. on 01.12.2020 applicant's mother along with her daughter Mamta Pal (applicant) and son Mohit Lal (brother) came on the place of incidence and applicant catch the deceased and applicant's mother pour the petrol on deceased then Mohit through the match stick on deceased with the intention to cause death on the carrying of deceased when Phoolmati and her daughter reached then all the accused run away the said witness and her daughter try to save the deceased but deceased got seriously injured then Radhika Devi covered the deceased from her stole after that informant, his wife and other village person came on the place of incidence, due to the land dispute applicant's mother cause burn injury on deceased Gutti Devi. The typed copy of the statement of eyewitness Smt. Phoolmati and Radhika are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this Affidavit. That the investigation officer inspected the place of the incident and seized the bottle of petrol on 02.12.2020 it is also pertinent to mention here that the investigation officer and another person admitted the fuel was petrol. The photocopy of the seizing report of the inquiry officer dated 02.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this Affidavit. That the accused were arrested from their residence and they were not absconded because the applicant is innocent and has not committed the said offense. That all witnesses of the case crime gave contradictory statements to each other, which shows that the applicant is falsely implicated in the case crime. That when the applicant's mother maintained her family by 5 bigha agricultural land as stated by Gungaria the sister-in-law of the applicant's mother then no reason are arose to burn the deceased on the part of the applicant's mother and applicant. That it is falsely alleged by the witnesses the applicant's mother killed her husband Bahraichi only for litigation while her husband got his natural death. That on 01.12.2020 the deceased was medically examined at CHC Motipur Bahraich in which this was mentioned that the smell of kerosene oil was present. The copy of the injury report of the deceased dated 01.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this Affidavit. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question with which the applicant has no concern in any manner but a false and fabricated story by the concerned police and informant. 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/accused. 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 offence under Sections 326, 307, 329, 302, 34 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. 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 the trial against the applicant is initiated and is going on. The informant and his wife have been examined by the trial court as P.W. - 1 & 2 and their chief and cross-examination have been recorded by the trial court on 14.09.2021 and  02.10.2021, in which a lot of contradictions appeared between statements recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C.. The photo/typed copy of the chief and cross-examination of the P.W. - 1 & 2 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That there are too many contradictions in the statements of the P.W.- 1 & 2. They both have told different stories to the trial court, which cannot stand on its own as the the applicant, her mother and her brother have been falsely implicated in the said case crime for the property. That there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as to date only the informant and his wife have been examined as P.W. - 1 & 2 and yet several witnesses are in queue for their examination as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his trial. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 836/12A/2021 before District Judge, Bahraich, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 16.06.2021. The certified copy of the order dated 16.06.2021 has been annexed with the first bail application No. 10378 of (B) 2021. The photocopy of the bail rejection order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 12 to this affidavit. That the applicant has born a child in jail where the life of the applicant’s baby will be ruined as such for the better future of the applicant’s baby, in the interest justice, the applicant would be released on bail. 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 tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant has been in jail since 03.12.2020 without committing any crime. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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. 143 of 2020 lodged under Sections 326, 307, 329, 302, 34 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Sajauli, District – Bahraich, in the interest of justice.


I, Neeraj Pratap Singh aged about 43 son of Shri Jang Bahadur Singh resident of Badi Katariya, Atheha, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is brother of applicant and doing pairvi of applicant in the above noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo affidavit slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the counsel of the applicant has explained the contents of the bail application in Hindi as such the deponent understand the same. That this is second bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. First bail application No. 30660 of 2020 was rejected by Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha “J” & Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal “J” on 06.09.2022. The photocopy of the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That this second bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant have falsely been implicated in Case Crime No. 289 of 2019 lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act registered at Police Station – Udaipur, District – Pratapgarh on 31.10.2010, against the 9 persons including the applicant. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 31.10.2010 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that on 31.10.2010 around 5.00 PM, it is alleged that the Jang Bahadur Singhw was allegedly armed with lathi and his two sons i.e. the applicant and deponent were allegedly armed with gunds. It has been further alleged that on instigation of Jang Bahadur the applicant fired upon Dharmendra Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who died, when he reached to hospital for treatment. That according to the prosecution the first information report was registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh at Case Crime Nill/ 2010 on 31.10.2010 at 11.00 PM thereafter the matter was referred to the Police Station – Udaipur and the case crime No. 289 of 2010 given to it. That without proper investigiation of the case crime, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the 9 accused including the applicant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act registered at Police Station – Udaipur, District – Pratapgarh. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the applicant. That the applicant has been convicted by the trial court to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and default of payment of fine to a further period of simple imprisonment for next two years vide order dated 13.01.2020 under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C.. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged case crime. That no indepnednt prosecution witnesses have been examined or produced by the prosecution in support of his case and only interest and partisan witnesses have been examined. That the evidence of the prosecution withnesses relied upon the trial court for the conviction of the applicant and the co-accused Jang Bahadur Singh, has been disbelieved in respect of several other co-accused persons in the present case who have been acquitted by the trial court. That there is no evidence against the applicant to convict him under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses while disposing of the trial. That the trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the witnesses produced before him and wrongly convicted the applicant and co-accused Jang Babadur Singh, who is the father of the applicant. That the medical of the deceased not supported the prosectution story and contradicts the oral evidences of the prosecution. The photo/typed copy of the post mortem report of the deceased is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the P.W. – 2 Sanjeev Kumar Pandey (alleged injured) has stated in his statement that the co-accused Jang Babadur Singh has exhorted accused Neeraj Pratap Singh (acquitted by the trial court) who fired at Sanjeev Kumar Pandey causing injuries on his right hand. It is alleged in his statement that some perons had assaulted P.W. – 3 Shivam by lathi. A perusal of the statement of the Doctor who had examined the alleged injured Shivam P.W. – 3, would show that he has not received any injury (Dr. Sumut Kumar Pandy – P.W. -9), he did not find any injury on the person of Shivam. That here it is also relevant to point out that Dr. Sumit Kumar Pandey was allegedly posted at District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 31.10.2010 and he had allegedly examined Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, he has stated that in his statement that the injuries allegedly received by the alleged injured Sanjeev Kumar Pandey were caused by som blunt object, he has specifically stated that the alleged injured Sanjeev Kumar Pandy did not receive any firearm injury. That according to the statement of the Dr. Sumit Kumar Pandey/ P.W. – 9, only one blunt object inury was found on the right hand of the alleged injured Sanjeev Kumar Pandey whereas according to the statement of the prosecution witnesses severa persons had assaulted the alleged injured Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, thus the medical evidence contradicts the oral evidences of the prosecution. That as a matter of fact, the deceased did not give any statement either to the Doctor or to the police or to anybody else about the alleged incident and the police sub inspector appears to have mentioned in the police papers that the deceased while being taken to the hospital from the alleged place of occurance, had given some statement to him which was not recorded by him. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 926 of 2012 under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Udaipur, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant is granted bail by the court concerned. That neither the applicant has motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question with which the applicant has no concern in any manner but false and fabricated story is by the concerned police and informant. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence. That the parents of the applicant are old age persons and aged about 70 years and suffering from several oldage problems. There is no other male person in the house to take care of the family of the applicant. That the applicant is blessed with two sons and two daughters and without their father, the career of children of the applicant would be ruined. That the applicant is in jail since 13.01.2020 without committing any crime. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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, Mohd. Imran aged about 33 years son of Faiyaz Uddin resident of Bhatpurwa Yahiyapur, Police Station - Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Qualification – Illiterate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is brother of applicant and doing pairvi of the applicant in the above-noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo affidavit slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is annexed with this affidavit. That the counsel of the applicant has explained the contents of the bail application in Hindi as such the deponent understands the same. 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 third bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The first bail application No. 6810 of (B) 2021 has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 21.03.2022 and the second bail application No. 12341 (B) of 2022 has also been rejected by Hon'ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 21.10.2022. The photocopy of the orders dated 21.03.2022 and 21.10.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this Affidavit. That this third bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated by the opposite party No. 2 in case crime No. 168 of 2021 under Sections 375 of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered by the opposite party No. 2 at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh on 24.02.2021 at 04.03 hours. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 24.02.2021 lodged by the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that his niece i.e. the opposite party No. 2 studies at his house. The applicant is a resident of the nearby village of his niece and used to molest his niece several times on the way to and from school. The applicant and his brother, Asghar are criminals and do wrong things by threatening and luring the girls of the village and taking them out and selling them.  Due to that fear, the sister of opposite party No. 2 sent her daughter to study at opposite party No. 2’s house. On 23.02.2021 at around 8 pm., the applicant entered the house of the opposite party No. 2 and committed rape with the opposite party No. 3. On alarm of the opposite party No. 3, the applicant caught hold by the opposite party No. 2 and others and brought him to the police station. 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 23.02.2021 around 20.00 hours but the first information report has been lodged on 24.02.2021 at 04.03 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2and his family lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the prosecution story i.e. the averments of the first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2 itself is very doubtful as it is impossible for any person to pinpoint a room to hide at an unknown house and then wait there anticipation that the girl would come in the same room and when the girl would arrive, then the applicant could tie the cloth around her mouth and committed rape with the opposite party No. 3. That on 02.04.2021, the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which he almost repeated the averments of the first information report lodged by him. The typed copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 24.02.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on the very same day i.e. 24.06.2022, the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which she stated that she used to live with her parents then the applicant used to harass & molest her on the way while going to school.  Due to this, her parents sent her to the opposite party No. 2’s house to study.  On 23.02021 at around 8 o'clock in the night, the applicant came to her room after that she went to her room then the applicant raped her. On the alarm of the opposite party No. 3, the opposite party No. 2 and others come and caught the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 24.02.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the opposite party No. 3 was conducted on 24.02.2021 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned in which neither any injury was found on the body of the opposite party No. 3 nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the opposite party No. 3. The radiological age of the opposite party No. 3 was ascertained as 18 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 03.03.2021. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 24.02.2021 and supplementary medical report dated 03.03.2021 are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has recorded before the concerned court after seven days i.e. on 01.03.2021, in which she stated that she changed her story and stated that she was alone at her house, then the applicant entered her house. The opposite party No. 3 further said that she had never seen the applicant before and after he came to her room, he tied a cloth on her face and raped her. The opposite party No. 3 further alleged that after some time the villagers along with her family members came, the applicant was running, he fell while running, then her family members caught him, then the police took him away. The photo/typed copy of the statement of the O. P. No. 3 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 01.03.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the opposite party No. 3 has not supported her statement given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as the opposite party No. 3 stated her statement that the applicant hurt her many times on the body, he had threatened her a lot, while no single injury mentioned in the medical examination even the opposite party No. 3 denied for seeing before ever. 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. 3 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 on a bare perusal of the records of the case reveals that the opposite party No. 3 is not so innocent as portrayed by the prosecution in its story rather the opposite party No. 3 appears to be the consenting party in the instant case, who had called the applicant, who pertinently lives in some other village to her maternal uncle’s house i.e. at opposite party No. 2’s house. 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 without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 375 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 bearing charge sheet No. 197 of 2021 on 16.04.2021. That the real story of the case is that the applicant is a resident of the nearby village of the opposite party No. 3 and know each other. That the opposite party No. 3 and the applicant have fallen in love long back and they met regularly with each other the applicant and opposite party No. 3 decided to solemnized their marriage with their own WILL as both are major in age. That when the aforesaid fact came to knowledge of the family members of the opposite party No. 3 then they sent the opposite party No. 3 to the house of the opposite party No. 2 so that they could not meet each other anymore. That the family members of opposite party No. 3 came to the applicant’s house and threaten the applicant to break up the relationship with the opposite party No. 3 otherwise he faces consequences of the same. That on 23.02.2021, opposite party No. 3 made a phone call to the applicant and insisted to meet at the house of opposite party No. 2, at any cost otherwise she committed anything wrong with her. That the applicant went to the house of the opposite party No. 2, to meet with the opposite party No. 3, where he was caught by opposite party No. 2 and his family members and brought to the police station concerned. That here it is relevant to mention that the applicant was severely beaten by the opposite party No. 2 and his family members prior to being brought to the police station in order to teach him a lesson for loving the opposite party No. 3 and thereafter handed over him to the concerned police on 24.02.2021 around 03.30 hours. Thereafter the applicant was sent for medical examination wherein several injuries were found on the body of the applicant. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That here it is relevant to mention that in the medical examination of the opposite party No. 3 which was well prompt, the mark or spot of the cloth tying is not found, however in the first information report as well as the statements of the opposite party No. 3 recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., the such allegation was made. That neither the applicant went to the house of the opposite party No. 2 nor has committed rape with the opposite party No. 3 as alleged against him. The applicant has no concern in any manner but the false and fabricated story is by the concerned police and opposite party No. 2. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that 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 offence under Sections 375 of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the opposite party No. 2 to teach the lesson the applicant for loving the opposite party No. 3. That there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is the common man of the society and does not have any other criminal history. That no any independent witnesses of the crime supported the prosecution story against the applicant as the prosecution story is false, incorrect, and baseless. That the offense under Sections 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not made out against the applicant as the age of the opposite party No. 3 has been ascertained above 18 years according to the radiological examination of the opposite party No. 3. That the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence alleged against him by the opposite party No. 2 and he has been falsely implicated in said case crime being belongs to the other religion. That the trial against the application is initiated and going on. The opposite party No. 3 has been examined by the trial court as P.W. - 2 and her chief and cross-examination have been recorded by the trial court on 27.07.2022 & 08.09.2022 respectively, in which a lot of contradictions appeared between the statements of the opposite party No. 3 recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C.. During the cross-examination, the opposite party No. 3/ P.W. - 2 stated that the applicant had not established a physical relationship with her ever. The photo/typed copy of the chief and cross-examination of the opposite party No. 3/ P.W. - 2 recorded by the trial court on 27.07.2022 & 08.09.2022 respectively are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 21.10.2022, when the second bail application of the applicant was rejected, directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial within six months. The copy of the aforesaid order has been served before the trial court but after passing more than six months, the trial is not concluded yet. That there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as to date only the opposite party No. 2 & 3 has been examined as P.W. - 1 & 2 and yet 7 witnesses are in queue for their examination as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his trial. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1197 of 2021 before Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.06.2021. The certified copy of the order dated 15.06.2021 has been annexed with the first bail application No. 6810 of (B) 2021. The photocopy of the bail rejection order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. 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 tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is in jail since 24.02.2021 without committing any crime. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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. 168 of 2021 lodged under Sections 375 of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, during pendency of the case, in the interest of justice.


I, Gulam Jilani aged about 26 years son of Farid Ahmad resident of Village – Kurwar, Police Station - Kurwar, District – Sultanpur, Qualification – Intermediate, Occupation – Private Job, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the son of the applicant and doing pairvi of the applicant in the above-noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo affidavit slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is annexed with this affidavit. That the counsel of the applicant has explained the contents of the bail application in Hindi as such the deponent understands the same. 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 third bail application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The first bail application No. 6633 of (B) 2020 was rejected by Hon’ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 22.04.2022 and the second bail application No. 1798 (B) of 2023 has also been rejected by Hon'ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 14.03.2023. The photocopy of the orders dated 22.04.2022 and 14.03.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this Affidavit. That this third bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated by Shakeel Ahmad son of Sagir Ahmad resident of Village – Kurwar, Police Station - Kurwar, District – Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the informant’) in case crime No. 308 of 2019 under Section 302 of I.P.C. registered by the informant at Police Station – Kurwar, District – Sultanpur on 23.06.2020 at 23.20 hours. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 23.06.2020 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that his father namely Sagir Ahmad (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) has a tailoring shop in the Kurwar Market and on 23.06.2020 around 05.30 when he was going to the mosque for prayer at that time the applicant assaulted upon him and stabbed with scissors. The informant after getting information brought his father to the C.H.C., Kurwar, from where he was referred to the District Hospital, Sultanpur, where he was cleared dead. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in her first informant report. That the concerned police prepared the inquest report on 24.06.2020 in presence of the several villagers, in which nothing has been recorded in the name of the applicant. The photo/typed copy of the inquest report dated 24.06.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the dead body of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem at P. M. House Sultanpur and the post-mortem was conducted by the doctor concerned on 24.06.2020 in which the cause of death was ascertained as ‘Hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injury’. The photo/typed copy of the post-mortem of the deceased dated 24.06.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which the informant repeated his first information report version and stated name of some witnesses as eyewitnesses of the alleged incident. The typed copy of the statement of the informant is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on the very same of the alleged incident i.e. on 23.06.2020 and also prepared a false and fabricated recovery memo on 24.06.2020 showing that the murder weapon was recorded on the pointing out of the applicant. The photo/ typed copy of the recovery memo dated 24.06.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant in the aforesaid case crime and from the perusal of the entire material and evidences, collected by the investigating officer and also from the perusal of the contents of the first information report, it is evident that offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is not made out against the applicant. That the prosecution's story is unbelievable and beyond the imagination as the informant and other witnesses have explained the story of the informant to fulfill the loopholes of the prosecution story. That the prosecution story i.e. the averments of the first information report lodged by the informant itself is very doubtful as there was no motive assigned for the murder of the deceased. That the post-mortem report also did not collaborate with the prosecution's story, which clearly shows that the applicant is falsely implicated in this case crime. That the deceased was murdered by unknown persons but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That due to malafide intention, the informant for extraneous reasons, was falsely implicated in the first information report after knowing everything about the incident, while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concern with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the informant and the allegation against the applicant along with the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That neither nothing has been recovered from the application possession nor pointing of him, which shows that the applicant has not committed the case crime as alleged against him, however, the concerned police for extraneous reasons prepared a false recovery memo. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C. 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 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 offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That without the proper investigation of the case crime, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the applicant on 04.08.2019, in which 14 witnesses were assigned. That this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 14.03.2023, when the second bail application of the applicant was rejected, directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial within one year. The copy of the aforesaid order has been served before the trial court but after more than one year, the trial is not concluded yet. That the trial against the application is initiated and going on and there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as to date only two witnesses have been examined as P.W. - 1 & 2 and yet 12 witnesses are in queue for their examination as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his trial. The photo/typed copy of the order sheet of the trial is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1966 of 2019 before Session Judge, Sultanpur, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 21.05.2020. The certified copy of the order dated 15.06.2021 has been annexed with the first bail application No. 6633 of (B) 2020. The photocopy of the bail rejection order dated 21.05.2020 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. 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 tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is in jail since 24.06.2020 without committing any crime. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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. 308 of 2019 lodged under Section 302 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Kurwar, District – Sultanpur, during pendency of the case, in the interest of justice.


The applicant named above most respectfully states us under: For the fact reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying supplementary Affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the registry to take the supplementary rejoinder affidavit to the supplementary affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 04.01.2024, in above noted case, on record and grant bail to the applicant in connection with Case Crime No. 201 of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 506 of I.P.C and  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. Lucknow					    	          (Dr. Gyan Singh) Advocate Criminal Misc. Case No.  2867  (BAIL)  of 2023 Sajjad Ahmad aged about 25 years son of Sahmshad resident of Village - Dubahi, Police Station - Mandhata, District - Pratapgarh .....Applicant/Accused (In jail since 21.09.2022) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow Complainant of Case Crime No. 0201/2022 U/s 376-D, 506 IPC & 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station – Mandhata, District – Pratapgarh S.H.O./I.O. Police Station – Mandhata, District – Pratapgarh Child Welfare Committee through its Chairman, District – Pratapgarh High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, High Court, Lucknow .....Opposite Parties I, Mohammad Idrish aged about 58 years son of Fariduddin resident of Village - Purela, Chittpalgarh, Police Station - Delhupur, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the ____________/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 it is further declared that the counsel of the applicant has explained the contents of the supplementary affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 and instant affidavit in Hindi and the deponent understands the content of the said affidavits and as such he is in a position to give the parawise reply to the counter affidavit. However, before giving reply, the humble deponent is giving some facts for judicious disposal of the bail application. That the deponent being the relative of the applicant doing pairvi of the applicant as such the opposite party No. 2 tried to build pressure upon the deponent and others, lodged a first information report on 06.11.2022 on the basis of the false and incorrect facts. That the deponent and others have not committed the offense as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in her first information report and after receiving the copy of the supplementary affidavit dated 04.01.2024, the counsel of the applicant informed him regarding the false first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2. That the deponent has neither received any notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. from the concerned police nor summon from the court concerned. The opposite party No. 2 lodged the said first information report to build pressure upon the deponent for the purpose that the deponent could not do the pairvi of the applicant. That the contents of para No. 1 & 2 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 need no comments. That the contents of para No. 3 & 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 stated in the manner are not admitted and hence denied being incorrect. In reply thereto, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 2 lodged the first information report with malafide intention to build pressure upon the deponent to denied doing a pairvi of the applicant and make grounds for rejection of the bail moved by the deponent. That the co-accused of the case crime namely Jeeshan Ahmad also moved a bail application before this Hon'ble High Court bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 6927 of 2023, has been allowed by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28.10.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. SA -1 to this affidavit. That the case of the applicant is also similar to the co-accused namely Jeeshan Ahmad as such the applicant would be also released by this Hon'ble High Court on the basis of the parity of the case. That here it is relevant to mention that the opposite party No. 2 has not brought the above false and fabricated first information report prior, at the time of granting the bail order of the co-accused. 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 Case Crime No. 201 of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 506 of I.P.C and  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, Nanhe aged about 53 years son of Shri Sheetal, resident of Village – Kewalapur Kherauna, Police Station - Amethi, District – Amethi, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent 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 his photograph is affixed on 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 he conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the Hon'ble Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 190 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Amethi, District – Amethi on 15.06.2022 at 12.42 hours, against the applicant and 3 othis family members. The first information report is lodged by Shri Sajjan Lal son of Shri Mishri Lal resident of Village – Adamapur, Police Station – Amethi, District – Amethi (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/ type copy of the first information report dated 15.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that the marriage of the applicant and his sister namely Nandini (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was solemnized and the applicant on demand of the dowry i.e. for Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle, murdered the deceased on 13.06.2022. That it is relevant to mention here that the informant himself stated that he was informed with regard to the death of the deceased by the applicant but the informant planned and falsely implicated the applicant and his family members to get financial benefit. Thereafter on basis of legal advice, the first information report has been lodged against the applicant and his family members on wrong and baseless facts. That the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police in presence of the Panchan and also in presence of the informant and other persons, who are the residents of the informant’s village on 13.06.2022. The photo/type copy of the inquest report dated 13.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the body of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem on 14.06.2022 at District Hospital, Amethi wherein the post-mortem was done by doctors. The photo/type copy of the post-mortem report dated 14.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That according to the post-mortem report, no injury was found on the body of the deceased and the time of death of the deceased was about 36 hours back, which is also not collaborated with the prosecution story. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the concerned police under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.06.2022 and therein the informant repeated his first information report version in another manner and tried to develop his prosecution story to fill the loopholes of the prosecution story. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 15.06.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That the statement of the father, mother and sister-in-law of the deceased was also recorded by the concerned police under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 30.07.2022 in which they repeated the version of the informant in their own words and tried their best to falsely implicate the applicant and his family members in said case crime. That later on 28.08.2022, the further statement of the informant has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that the marriage of the sister of the informant and the applicant solemnized on 11.06.2019, when due to several restrictions been imposed due to the Covid-19, hence marriage solemnized in Chandrikan Dham Mandir. He further stated that due to Covid-19, he had not invited the several persons in said marriage and even, Pandit and Nai also. The typed copy of the further statement of the informant dated 28.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That the investigating officer for extraneous reasons, believed on the further statement of the informant while the Covid-19 was spread in the year 2020 not in 2019 as alleged by the informant. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant and the deceased has a love relationship for a long back and the informant and his family were not happy with the relationship between the deceased and the applicant. That the applicant’s family welcomed the relationship of the applicant & deceased and their marriage was solemnized in the temple and the deceased resided with the applicant and his family members happily. That the informant and his family members have always called the deceased and humiliated her due to which the deceased was upset and going into deep mental trauma. That the sadness of the deceased increased day by day and she has gone into a deep depression. That here it is relevant to mention that the deceased was a short-tempered lady and due to regular pressure from her parental house, she become more aggressive and also not in a position to take good decisions due to her anger. That the mother of the applicant went to her parental house on 10.06.2022 for her nephew’s marriage, which was fixed for 18.06.2022 and then the deceased was alone at the house. That during the said period, the informant and his family members build extreme pressure upon the deceased for leaving her husband i.e. the applicant and the applicant’s house and being a short-tempered lady the deceased hanged herself and committed suicide. That on 13.06.2022 around 11.00 hours, the deceased fought with the applicant for purchasing a new sewing machine, however, the applicant assured he will purchase a second-hand machine as his budget not allowed for the new purchase. That thereafter the applicant went to drive the tractor for his livelihood meanwhile the deceased, who was also under extreme pressure from her parental house, committed suicide by hanging herself. That the informant was informed immediately by the applicant after said unfortunate incident and thereafter he came to the applicant’s house. That after getting information regarding the death of the deceased, the informant moved an application before the concerned Police Station – Amethi, District – Amethi on 13.06.2022 stating therein that his sister committed suicide and the reason is unknown. The photo/typed copy of the application moved by the informant before the concerned Police Station on 13.06.2022 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That thereafter due to certain reasons for harassing the applicant and his family members for saving themselves, the informant for extraneous reasons lodged the first information against the applicant and others after getting legal advice. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that 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/accused. That the investigating officer without proper investigation of the case crime submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and other under bearing Charge Sheet No. A259 of 2022 on 10.09.2022 under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The photocopy of the charge sheet dated 10.09.2022 submitted in case crime is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the mother of the applicant has been also enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 03.02.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. 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 offence is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which was given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That no involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is a common man of society. He has never been involved in any criminal activities ever. 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 tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this . That the applicant/accused is in Jail since   20.06.2022 without committing any crime. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail application bearing Bail Application No. 559 of 2023 but the same has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur on insufficient grounds vide order dated 17.03.2023. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 17.03.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. 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. 190 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Amethi, District – Amethi, during the pendency of the case.


I, Anil Kumar aged about 25 years son of Shri Ramkumar resident of Village – Vishundaspur Ganipur, Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Student, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the nephew/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 his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No any other bail application pending before this  or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against applicant and others on 17.07.2022 by informant namely Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Late Vishram resident of Village – Vishundaspur, Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) bearing Case Crime No. 82 of 2022 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 34, 376, 511, 354B of IPC at Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi.  The photocopy of the first information report dated 17.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according the first information report the informant stated in her first information report that on 25.09.2021 around 22.00 hours the applicant entered in the house of the informant alongwith unknown person and raped her. On alarm of the informant her sons and others came to incident place the applicant beaten her. When the informant went to the house of the applicant for complaining then the brother, son and others have abusing the informant. That after 9 days of the lodging the first information report, the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 26.07.2022 by the concerned police, in which she changed her statement and stated that the applicant tried to rape her and also tried to develop her prosecution story. The typed copy of the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 26.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the informant refused to get examined medically after she was produced before medical officer of the concerned hospital without any reason, which was duly signed by the son of the informant. The denial from the medical by the informant herself which has been duly supported by her son, which itself creates doubt upon the prosecution story. The photo/typed copy of the denial of the medical of the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the statement of informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the concerned court after one month of the on 17.08.2022, in which she again changed her statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as version of the first information report and she admitted that the applicant had not raped her and also not beaten by him on alleged date of incident. The typed copy of the statement of informant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 17.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the son of the informant has also recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as eyewitness of the case crime, in which he also tried his best to falsely implicate the applicant and others in said case crime. The typed copy of the statement of son of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the real story of the case is in nutshell: one resident of the villager namely Mahesh Kumar, who is also named in aforesaid case crime, is the friend of the applicant and the applicant is named in aforesaid crime merely ground that he is friend of Mahesh Kumar, while the applicant has no concerned with the said alleged incident. That the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and his family residing their ancestral house situated at Village – Vishundaspur, Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi. That in year 1987, the state government given 5 biswa land to the wife of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar on lease for agriculture. Later on, when the family of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar become large then he build a kachchaa house on his land, which is away from his old house. That after moving in new house, the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and his family members also using his old house without any hurdle, where the applicant almost daily visited being friend of Mahesh Kumar. That thereafter the informant and her sons demolished the wall of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar’s house and put their household items in the old house of the applicant. That when the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar tried to re-build the wall of his house then the informant and her sons have beaten the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and his family members then the mother of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar moved an application before the concerned Police Station for lodging the first information report against the informant and her sons on 22.04.2021 but nothing has done by him. The photo/ typed copy of the application moved by the mother of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar before the concerned Police Station on 22.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That thereafter the informant herself moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, District – Amethi through IGRS portal, in which the concerned police given his report stating therein that the informant herself tried to take possession on the land of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and for the precaution, the proceeding under Sections 107/116 of Cr.P.C. done on 26.10.2021. The photocopy of the IGRS/police report given by the concerned Police Station is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That meanwhile, the informant filed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the court concerned for building the pressure of the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar and his family members and the court concerned without considering the fact of the case, passed order for lodging the first information report against the applicant also merely that the applicant is the friend of Mahesh Kumar and others and in compliance of the same, the first information report dated 17.08.2022 lodged. That the whole story cooked by the informant and her family members against the applicant and explained by the concerned police after knowing everything, while the applicant has no concerned with the said incident. That the son of the informant is not the eyewitness of the alleged incident and prosecution story as narrated therein highly improbable, improper and unnatural and unbelievable for prudent man. The informant herself admitted that the applicant not raped her. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet No. 98 of 2022 under Sections 376, 511, 34, 506 of IPC on 20.08.2022 against the applicant. The photocopy of the charge sheet dated 20.08.2022 submitted by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That a false story cooked up by the concerned police and the informant and her family members for obtaining the money form the state government, which is given to the rapped informant. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. that the fact that the informant had refused her medical examination after levelling very serious allegations of rape against the applicant and not giving any explanation for the same, indicates the possibility of false implication of the accused. No justification or logical reason is coming forth from the informant regarding the refusal of the informant for her medical examination. The refusal of the informant to get her medical examination conducted and give samples indicates the possibility of false prosecution of the applicant and throws a doubt on the veracity of her allegations against the applicant. That where the evidence of the informant is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material and there being refusal by the informant to undergo medical examination, then no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. Onus is always on the informant to prove and informant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. That the case of the informant is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from weakness of case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the informant is found to be improbable, prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. The informant knew the accused prior to the incident. If evidence of informant is read and considered in 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 in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not have a motive to commit the offence. That the informant denied to have examined medically without reason, which creates doubt 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 benefit of doubt. That the applicant’s friend Mahesh Kumar i.e. another accused of the case crime has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 17.10.2022. The photocopy of the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant and their family members in malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2949 of 2022 before Sessions Judge, Sultanpur and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 21.09.2022. Here it is relevant to mention that the free certified copy of the order dated 21.09.2022 has been misplaced by deponent due to which another certified copy of the order has been prepared for filing this bail application. The free certified copy of the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 19.09.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. 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 in connection with Case Crime No. 82 of 2022 under Sections 376, 511, 34, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station – Ramganj, District – Amethi, in the interest of justice.


I, Manish Maurya aged about 23 years son of Shri Hari Prasad Maurya resident of 6, Katchery Road, District - Prayagraj (earlier Allahabad, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Private Job, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the son/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 his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. 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 any 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 is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant on 02.06.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 72 of 2023 under Sections 376 AB of I.P.C. and 5m, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh.  The certified copy of the first information report dated 02.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according the first information report, the opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that on 02.06.2023 around 10.30 AM the applicant was in a drunken stage and brought the opposite party No. 3 into his house and molested her and when the opposite party No. 3 started crying, the applicant pushed her and she has fallen nearby stair. From where the opposite party No. 3 was brought to her house by the cousin brother of the opposite party No. 2. That the medical of the opposite party No. 3 was conducted on 02.06.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, in which nothing has been found with regard to the allegations of the opposite party No. 2. The photocopy of the medical report dated 02.06.2023 and supplementary medical report dated 03.06.2023 are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 02.06.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned police, in which he almost repeated his first information report and also tried to develop his prosecution story. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 02.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That on 02.06.2023, the statement of the alleged eyewitness i.e. cousin brother of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the concerned police, in which he repeated almost the first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2. The typed copy of the statement of the alleged eyewitness dated 02.06.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on 03.06.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 3 was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police in which she changed the prosecution story and stated that when she was crying after molestation at that moment alleged eyewitness entered the house of the applicant and scolded him. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That on 03.06.2023, the statement of the mother of the opposite party No. 3 was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police in which she repeated the statement of the opposite party No. 3. The typed copy of the statement of the mother of the opposite party No. 3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the statement of opposite party No. 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the concerned court, in which she almost repeated her statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C.. The typed copy of the statement of opposite party No. 2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 15.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That on the perusal of the statement of the opposite party No. 3 given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that the words used by the opposite party No. 3 are not her words, those words were put in the mouth of the opposite party No. 3 by the opposite party No. 2 and concerned police. That without proper investigation of the case crime, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet No. 71 of 2023 under Sections 376 AB of I.P.C. and 5m, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on 09.06.2023 for extraneous reasons. That the real story of the case is that the applicant and opposite party No. 2 & 3 are family members. That the applicant was a government employee and retired from Gram Panchayat Department at District Prayagraj and rarely visited his native place. That the applicant’s daughter is fixed and for money, he was trying to sell his land and the opposite party No. 2 showed his interest in purchasing the applicant’s land. That the opposite party No. 2 offered too low a price while the market value of the applicant’s land is too high as such the applicant denied selling his land to the opposite party No. 2. That after denial from selling his land, the opposite party No. 2 annoyed and threatened the applicant to face consequences and the first information report was lodged on the basis of the false and incorrect grounds to blackmail the applicant. That there are no any genuine ground found by the concerned police against the applicant and for extraneous reasons, the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant in said case crime. That the cousin brother of the opposite party No. 2 is not the eyewitness of the alleged incident and prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural and unbelievable for a prudent man. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not have the motive to commit the offense. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members with malafide intentions. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2576 of 2023 and his bail application has been rejected by the Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh on 20.10.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any 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. 72 of 2023 under Sections 376 AB of I.P.C. and 5m, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.