I, Priyam Srivastava aged about 24 years son of Shri Dilip Srivastava resident of Village – Dharmganj Godairee, Police Station – Haidarganj, District - Ayodhya, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Private Job, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant and doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph 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 this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report was logged by the Ram Milan/informant on the 19.02.2019 at 22.23 hours against the applicant and two other persons, registered as Case Crime No. 98 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C., 16, 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 relating to Police Station – Bikapur, District – Faizabad regarding the incident which said to have been taken place on 18.02.2019 around 08:00 hours. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 19.02.2019 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That according to the First Information Report the prosecution story is in nutshell, on 18.02.2019 at 08:00 hours, the daughter of the informant namely Anshu Kumari (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’) aged about 16 years went to school and when she not returned home by evening then he searched his best and came to know that the applicant eloped the victim. That after the said incident which was occurred on 18.02.2019 around 08.00 hours, the first information report has been lodged after one day delayed i.e. on 19.02.2019 about 22.23 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to delay caused in lodging first information report. That on 01.03.2019, the victim was recovered by concerned police and her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. recorded by the concerned police, in which she stated that she has fallen love with the applicant and having love relation and she herself gone with the applicant and solemnized marriage with him with her own free WILL. The photocopy of the case diary No. CD-3 of the case crime mentioning the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That on 02.03.2019, the victim was brought to hospital by the concerned police for the medical but she denied for same and same has been duly confirmed and verified by her mother. The photocopy of the case diary No. CD-4 of the case crime is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the concerned court on 08.03.2019, in which she almost repeated her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and stated that she was not abducted by the applicant, even she herself went with her and solemnized marriage with her own free WILL. The photocopy of the case diary No. CD-6 of case crime which contents the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That later on the medical of the victim was conducted by the doctor, in which her radiological age has been ascertained as 18 years. The photocopy of the case diary No. CD-5 of case crime is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That in statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that she loved to the applicant and she went with him and solemnized marriage with the applicant. That the real fact of the incident is that the applicant and victim have fallen in love and decided to live with each other but the decision of the applicant and victim was not welcomed by the family members of the victim. That thereafter the family members of the victim started searching bridegroom for victim thereafter the applicant and victim decided to leave their house and solemnized marriage. That the applicant and victim has no other way except to leave their house and finally they leave their house on 18.02.2019 and solemnized their marriage in presence of their well-wishers. The photographs of the marriage of the applicant and victim along high school certificate of the victim are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That the whole story cooked by the informant and their family members against the applicant and explained by the concerned police. That during the investigation the Section 376 of IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been added and 17, 18 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 withdrawn. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society. He has never involved in any criminal activities ever and 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 applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this . That the applicant is in Jail since 08.03.2019 without committing any offence. 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 . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Faizabad but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 10.07.2019. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned court is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 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 during pendency of case.


I, Vinod Singh aged about 49 years son of Shri Mritunjay Pratap Singh resident of Amaon, Police Station – Mungra, Badshahpur, District - Jaunpur, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Former, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father of the applicant and doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph 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 this is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant on new grounds before this Hon'ble High Court. Earlier the first bail application filed by the applicant bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 12030 (B) of 2021 (Shubham Singh Vs State of U.P.) has been rejected on 13.04.2022 by Hon’ble Justice Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh ‘J’. This is the second bail application of the applicant before the Hon'ble Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. The photocopy of the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report was logged by the Smt. Archna Singh wife of Late Sudhir Singh resident of Village – Jogapur Narshingh Bhan Ka Purwa, Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) on the 25.02.2021 at 01:38 hours against the applicant registered as Case Crime No. 171 of 2021 under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 relating to Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh regarding the incident which said to have been taken place on 20.03.2020. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 25.02.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That according to the First Information Report lodged by the informant, the prosecution story is in nutshell that the informant has lodged Case Crime No. 07 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 34, 506 IPC at Police Station – Kotwali City, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant is also accused for murder of informant’s husband. After murder of husband of the informant the applicant used to harass the informant and threatening her. On 20.03.2020 under the life threat informant’s minor son, the applicant raped her and also recorded the incident. That after the said incident which was occurred on 20.03.2020 around 11.00 hours and the first information report has been lodged after more than 11 months delayed i.e. on 25.02.2021 about 01.38 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to delay caused in lodging first information report. That on very same i.e. on 25.02.2021, the statement of the informant has been recorded by concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated her first information report and also tried to falsely implicate in alleged case crime by stating that the applicant raped her from 17.03.2020 to 20.03.2020. The typed copy of the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this application. That the informant refused to get examined medically after she was produced at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh on 26.02.2021 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 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. 4 to this affidavit. That the statement of informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the concerned court on 01.03.2021, she changed her statement and stated that after murder of husband of the informant, the applicant after releasing on bail in June, 2019, started molestation with the informant and due to fear of the applicant, she leaved the District – Pratapgarh and moved to her parental house i.e. District – Varanasi and resided there. The informant further alleged that incident took place on 20.03.2020 around 11.00 hours and said the applicant has raped her from 17.03.2020 to 20.03.2021 i.e. three days. The typed copy of the statement of informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is being annexed as Annexure No. 5 to this application. That the statement of the informant given under Sections 161 & 164 is not trustworthy as it is not possible that the informant was abducted by the applicant on 17.03.2020 till 20.03.2020 but no any family members of the informant searching her or not approached the concerned police regarding her missing. That the further statement of the informant has been recorded by the concerned police on 05.04.2021, in which she stated that she had provided the Whatsapp chat of the applicant and informant from 12.03.2020 to 17.03.2020 earlier and further stated that rest chats are not available due to damage of her mobile phone. The typed copy of the further statement dated 05.04.2021 of the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant was residing at the house of the informant as tenant. That the husband of the informant was doing business of real estate and the applicant was also associated with her husband. That on 01.01.2019 the husband of the informant was murdered by his business revival and thereafter a first information report dated 03.01.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 07 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 34, 506 IPC at Police Station – Kotwali City, District – Pratapgarh 5 named and one unknown person by the informant. The applicant was not named in the first information report dated 03.01.2019. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 03.01.2019 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That thereafter name of the applicant came in light in Case Crime 07 of 2019 by the statement of the sister of the deceased husband of the informant recorded by the concerned police on 12.01.2019 as eyewitness, in which she stated that on 01.01.2019 around 23.00 hours, she saw that her brother was with the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the sister of the deceased husband of the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That later on the business revival of the deceased husband of the informant, who have money and muscular power, their names were dropped during investigation and the charge sheet has been filed only against the applicant by the concerned police. That the applicant was sent to jail in connection of the Case Crime No. 07 of 2019 and released on from in June, 2019 after getting bail granted by this Hon'ble High Court on 29.05.2019. That after coming back to home, the informant met with the accused and stated that some dispute arisen with her father-in-law and mother-in-law and they have forcefully brought her son with them and the informant wants the help of the applicant in filing the case before Child Welfare Committee, Pratapgarh for taking custody of her son from her father-in-law and mother-in-law. That the applicant bonafidly was helping the informant for filing the case for taking custody of her son from her father-in-law and mother-in-law as he was also help after murder of her husband in lodging of the first information repot on 03.01.2019. That the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant submitted their reply/objection before the Child Welfare Committee, Pratapgarh  and later on the case of custody of the informant’s son has been given to her father-in-law and mother-in-law vide order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Pratapgarh. The photocopy of the order passed by the 09.07.2019 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Pratapgarh is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the informant given wrong and false statement before the trial court which is going on in relation to the Case Crime No. 7 of 2019. The informant is prosecution witness in said trial and stated that the custody of the informant’s son neither given to her mother-in-law and father-in-law nor order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Pratapgarh in their favour. The photo/typed copy of the statement given by the informant before trial court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That after defeating the case of custody of her son, the informant become annoyed with the applicant and threatened that as the applicant has not helped her and he will face the consequences of the same. That later on the informant in love and affection of her son, met with her father-in-law and mother-in-law and conspire against the applicant to build/ create new grounds for conviction of the applicant in trail, which is going on in relation to the Case Crime No. 07 of 2019. That later on after well planning the informant with the help of her father-in-law and mother-in-law lodged the instant first information report against the applicant on 25.02.2021 showing the incident dated 20.03.2020 after more than 11 months on false and concocted grounds. That here it is relevant to mention that the father-in-law moved an complaint which was duly forwarded by the then Cabinet Minister of the Government of U.P. to handover the investigation of the Case Crime No. 7 of 2019 to the C.B.C.I.D. as he has doubt upon the informant that she was involved in the murder of her husband. The photocopy of the complaint moved by the father-in-law of the informant against her is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That the trial has been initiated in the case crime and the informant has called by the trial court several time for recording her statement but for harassing the applicant not appearing before the trial court due to which the trial of the applicant is lingering on and he is languishing in jail. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That apart from above mentioned, in which the second bail application is being moving by the applicant, two other false and wrong cases have been lodged against the applicant, which are as under: The photocopy of the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 12 to this affidavit. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 23.09.2021. The photo copy of bail rejection order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the learned court is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 13 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 fact that the informant had refused her medical examination after leveling 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 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 there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That there is no chance of 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 09.09.2021 without committing any offence. 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 . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  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 Case Crime No. 171 of 2021 under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 related to the Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, during pendency of case.


I, Maniram Mishra aged about 60 years son of Shri Anurudh Prasad Mishra resident of Peeg, Peeng, Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Former, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pariokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. The photograph of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this 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 first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 10.09.2022 at 17.35 hours against the applicant which has been registered as Case Crime No. 252 of 2022 under Sections 354-D, 504, 506 of IPC and 7/8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh with regard to incident dated 23.01.2022. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 10.09.2022 lodged by the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That the prosecution story in a nutshell is that; the opposite party No. 2 is the owner of a shop and rarely his daughter visited the shop. The applicant is working in a medical shop which is in front of the shop of the opposite party No. 2. On 23.01.2022, the applicant molest his daughter but no report was lodged against him due to which again on 07.09.2022, the applicant molest his daughter. That the opposite party No. 2 lodged the first information report after more than eight months after the incident without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging the first information report after well thought on the basis legal advice. Here it is relevant to mention that the first information report has been written by an advocate, which is clear after reading the first information report. That the applicant submits before this Hon’ble Court that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in his first information report dated 10.09.2022. The first information report is highly delayed and there is no satisfactory explanation for the said reason. That the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant on the wrong, false story and for the purpose of taking revenge on the applicant and his family members due to caste politics. That on 10.09.2022, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 has been recorded by concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated his version of the first information report and also tried to improve her story to falsely implicate the applicant and others in the alleged case crime. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this application. That on 11.09.2022, the statement of the victim has been recorded by the concerned police, in which changed the prosecution story and stated that the applicant molest her on 23.01.2022 and again on 07.09.2022, when she was returning home from her school then she fell from her bicycle. The victim added additional supported facts to improve her story to falsely implicating the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 11.09.2022 of the case crime is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That later on the medical of the victim was conducted by the doctor on 11.09.2022 in District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh, in which her radiological age has been ascertained as 14 to 15 years and there were no any injuries found. The photo/typed copy of the medical rape of the victim of the case crime dated 11.09.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the concerned court on 13.09.2022, in which she changed her statement of 161 of Cr.P.C. and again tried her best to improve the prosecution story with additional facts. The victim stated that she was chatting with the applicant for the last 8-9 months and the applicant committed rape with her on 23.01.2022 when her father was not at his shop. The applicant was caught by some persons and beaten by them. The victim further stated that on 07.08.2022, the applicant molest and abused her when she was returning home from school.  The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 13.09.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 5 to this application. That the statement of the victim given under Sections 161 & 164 is not trustworthy as both statements have several contradictions, which have been clearly shown the same. That prior to recording of the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim, there was the no allegation made with regard to the rape of the victim but suddenly on 13.09.2022 the victim stated in her statement under 164 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant committed rape with her on 23.01.2022 and on 07.08.2022 molest & abused her. That during the investigation of the case crime, the investigating officer recorded the statements of the 8 eyewitnesses, who have almost given similar statements against the applicant. On bare perusal of the statements of the eyewitnesses, it has been clear that they have said that they have heard that the applicant committed offense with the victim, which clearly shows that they are not eyewitnesses of the case crime as mentioned by the investigating officer. That thereafter on 25.09.2022 charge sheet No. 247 of 2022 has been filed against the applicant by the investigating officer under Sections  354-D, 504, 506, 376 of IPC and 7/8, 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant is falsely implicated in the case crime by the opposite party No. 2 due to local caste politics. That the applicant belongs to the Brahman caste and the opposite party No. 2 is belongs to Ahir (Yadav) caste. That the applicant is working in a medical shop, which was situated in front of the shop of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has enmity with the applicant and other upper castes due to his own reasons. That the opposite party No. 2 on several occasions humiliated the applicant without any reasons and threatened to send him in jail. That thereafter the opposite party No. 2 with the help of members of his caste, who also having enmity with the applicant merely for being Brahman, lodged the first information report on 10.09.2022 with the help of an Advocate namely Vineet Kumar Yadav. That after lodging the said first information report, for putting gravity to his case, under the pressure of the opposite party No. 2, the victim changed her statement and stated that the applicant has committed rape with her on 23.01.2022. That the opposite party No. 2 produced the 8 eyewitnesses in support of his prosecution story, who all are his well-wishers and all belong to his caste. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant/accused. That except the present case, the applicant has no criminal history. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO), Pratapgarh bearing Bail Application No. 492 of 2023 but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 25.05.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 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 opposite party No. 2 and their family members with malafide intentions. That the case of the opposite party No. 2 is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and the story projected by the opposite party No. 2 is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. If evidence of opposite party No. 2 is read and considered in the totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, his deposition does not inspire confidence. 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 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 11.09.2022 without committing any offence. 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 . 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 in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail Case Crime No. 252 of 2022 under Sections 354-D,  504, 506, 376 of IPC and 7/8, 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 related to the Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, during pendency of case.


I, Shivani Maurya aged about 24 years wife of Shri Vishaal resident of Rahi, Police Station – Mill Area, District - Raebareli, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Housewife, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant and doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. The photograph 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 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 this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 02.12.2022 at 14.36 hours against the brother of the applicant namely Vishal Maurya which has been registered as Case Crime No. 503 of 2022 under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 at Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raebareli with regard to incident dated 17.10.2022. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 02.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That the prosecution story in nutshell is that; the applicant is the son-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 and as per allegations the brother of the applicant has bad eye on the property of the opposite party No. 2 and her another daughter also. On 17.10.2022, the brother of the applicant went to the house of the opposite party No. 2 and requested to stay there for resolving the issues, which were between them. When the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 raised alarm then she went to the room of her daughter where she found that the brother of the applicant was in the objectionable stage then her daughter informed that he raped her twice thereafter he threatened for life and for viral the video recorded by the brother of the applicant. That the opposite party No. 2 lodged the first information report around 45 days after the incident without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging the first information report. Here it is relevant to mention that the opposite party No. 2 herself moved application before the State Women Commission instead of moving application before the concerned Police Station or other higher authority of the police. That the applicant submits before this Hon’ble Court that the applicant was not named in the first information report and not committed any offence as alleged by the opposite party No. 2. The first information report is highly delayed and there is no satisfactory explanation for the said reason. That the applicant has been named in the case crime on the wrong and incorrect facts in counterblast to save herself in retaliation of the first information report lodged against her by the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant on 16.04.2022 bearing Case Crime No. 174 of 2022 under Sections 376, 452, 504, 506 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raebareli. The photocopy of the first information report dated 16.04.2022 lodged by the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) against the opposite party No. 2 and another is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That it is most relevant to mention here that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in her first information report dated 02.12.2022. That on 04.12.2022, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 has been recorded by concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she changed the version her first information report and introduced the two new accused, who are friends of the applicant including the applicant and also tried to improve her story to falsely implicate the applicant and others in alleged case crime. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this application. That on very same day i.e. 04.12.2022, the statement of the victim has been recorded by the concerned police, who also repeated the statement of under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of her mother alongwith additional improved facts to falsely implicate the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 04.12.2022 of the case crime is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That later on the medical of the victim was conducted by the doctor on 08.12.2022 in District Women Hospital, Raebareli, in which her radiological age has been ascertained as 17 years and there were no any injuries found. The photo/typed copy of the medical rape of the victim of the case crime dated 08.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the concerned court on 12.12.2022, in which she changed her statement of 161 of Cr.P.C. and again tried her best to improve the prosecution story with additional facts. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 12.12.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 6 to this application. That the statement of the opposite party No. 2 and victim given under Sections 161 & 164 is not trustworthy as both statements have several contradictions, which have been clearly showing the same. That the opposite party No. 2 and victim stated their statement under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant was recording the video of the alleged incident. That the investigating officer submitted another charge sheet No. 38A of 2023 on 01.04.2023 in which the name of the wife and two friends of the applicant dropped and the applicant has been charge sheeted. The photocopy of the charge sheet No. 38A of 2023 dated 01.04.2023 submitted by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the brother of the applicant and daughter of the opposite party No. 2 namely Shivani were in love and solemnized their marriage with the consent of the opposite party No. 2. That the mother of the applicant’s wife i.e. opposite party No. 2 wants to involve her daughter in flesh trading for she was not ready hence she annoyed with her daughter and brother of the applicant also. Meanwhile, his brother was sent to jail in connection with a forged and fabricated case, then the opposite party No. 2 called her daughter at home and thereafter her lover namely Ravi Shankar raped the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant, in which the opposite party No. 2 helped him. That here it is relevant to mention that the opposite party No. 2 have only two daughters and elder is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant. That the opposite party No. 2 is also annoyed with the brother of the applicant and his wife as the concerned police have filed the charge sheet against her and another in connection with Case Crime No. 174 of 2022 on 26.07.2022. That the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has also filed several civil cases before the competent court of law against her mother i.e. opposite party No. 2 to restrain her as she was selling and gifting the ancestral property of her father to her lover or others. The details of the suit filed by between the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant and the opposite party No. 2 are as under: Case No. 2476 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Rekha) which is pending before competent court. Case No. 2834 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Sangeeta Devi and another) which is pending before competent court. Case No. 2387 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Rekha Devi and others) which is pending before competent court. Case No. 2124 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Sheela and others) which is pending before competent court which is pending before competent court. Case No. 2476 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Sangeeta Devi), which is pending before competent court. Original Suit No. 959 of 2022 (Sangeeta Vs Shivani Maurya), which is dismissed on 02.11.2022. That the opposite party No. 2 and her lover tried their best to convince the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant for withdrawing the civil and criminal cases, lodged by her but she is not ready for the same and when the opposite party No. 2 failed in their aim then she lodged the named the applicant on false and incorrect facts. That the opposite party No. 2 and her lover are habitual offender and almost similar case has been lodged against them alongwith other accused bearing Case Crime No. 402 of  2022 under Sections 376, 328, 506, 120-B of I.P.C. at Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raebareli on 18.09.2022. That after lodging the said first information report, in retaliation as a counterblast to the first information report dated 16.04.2022 lodged by the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant, a first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the brother of the applicant. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That apart from above mentioned, in which the first bail application is being moving by the applicant, there is no other criminal case lodged against him i.e. the applicant has no criminal history. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO (Exclusive), First, Raebareli bearing Bail Application No. 1125 of 2023 but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 24.04.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 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 opposite party No. 2 and their family members in malafide intention. That the role of the applicant is only recording of the video assigned by the opposite party No. 2 and victim hence the Section 376-D of I.P.C. not attract against the applicant. That the case of the opposite party No. 2 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 opposite party No. 2 is found to be improbable, prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. If evidence of opposite party No. 2 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 there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That there is no chance of 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 24.02.2023 without committing any offence. 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 . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  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 Case Crime No. 503 of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 5/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 related to the Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raebareli, during pendency of case.


I, Shivani Maurya aged about 24 years wife of Shri Vishaal resident of Rahi, Police Station – Mill Area, District - Raebareli, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Housewife, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the wife of the applicant and doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. The photograph 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 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 this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 02.12.2022 at 14.36 hours against the applicant which has been registered as Case Crime No. 503 of 2022 under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 at Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raebareli with regard to incident dated 17.10.2022. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 02.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That the prosecution story in nutshell is that; the applicant is the son-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 and as per allegations the applicant has bad eye on the property of the opposite party No. 2 and her another daughter also. On 17.10.2022, the applicant went to the house of the opposite party No. 2 and requested to stay there for resolving the issues, which were between them. When the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 raised alarm then she went to the room of her daughter where she found that the applicant was in the objectionable stage then her daughter informed that the applicant raped her twice thereafter the applicant and threatened for life and for viral the video recorded by the applicant. That the opposite party No. 2 lodged the first information report around 45 days after the incident without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging the first information report. Here it is relevant to mention that the opposite party No. 2 herself moved application before the State Women Commission instead of moving application before the concerned Police Station or other higher authority of the police. That the applicant submits before this Hon’ble Court that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in her first information report dated 02.12.2022. The first information report is highly delayed and there is no satisfactory explanation for the said reason. That the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant on the wrong and incorrect facts in counterblast to save herself in retaliation of the first information report lodged against her by the wife of the applicant on 16.04.2022 and further create undue pressure on the applicant as the wife of the applicant has lodged a first information report against the opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 174 of 2022 under Sections 376, 452, 504, 506 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raebareli. The photocopy of the first information report dated 16.04.2022 lodged by the wife of the applicant against the opposite party No. 2 and another is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the competent court against the applicant, in which the concerned police gave a report on 16.11.2022 in which it has been stated that the opposite party No. 2 due to civil dispute, moving the application on false and incorrect grounds. The photo/type copy of the police report dated 16.11.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That it is most relevant to mention here that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in her first information report dated 02.12.2022. That the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant on the wrong, false story and for purpose of taking revenge from the applicant and his wife as the wife of the applicant has lodged the first information report against the opposite party No. 2 and another, who committed rape with her. That on 04.12.2022, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 has been recorded by concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she changed the version her first information report and introduced the two new accused including the brother of the applicant, who are friends of the applicant and also tried to improve her story to falsely implicate the applicant and others in alleged case crime. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this application. That on very same day i.e. 04.12.2022, the statement of the victim has been recorded by the concerned police, who also repeated the statement of under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of her mother alongwith additional improved facts to falsely implicate the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 04.12.2022 of the case crime is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That later on the medical of the victim was conducted by the doctor on 08.12.2022 in District Women Hospital, Raebareli, in which her radiological age has been ascertained as 17 years and there were no any injuries found. The photo/typed copy of the medical rape of the victim of the case crime dated 08.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the concerned court on 12.12.2022, in which she changed her statement of 161 of Cr.P.C. and again tried her best to improve the prosecution story with additional facts. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 12.12.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 7 to this application. That the statement of the opposite party No. 2 and victim given under Sections 161 & 164 is not trustworthy as both statements have several contradictions, which have been clearly showing the same. That the opposite party No. 2 and victim stated their statement under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant called their friends around 01.00 hours on 18.12.2022 however during investigation, when the investigating officer got CDR of friends of the applicant then found that no any call was made by the applicant and his brother, who has also named during the investigation. That during investigating of the case crime, the wife, brother and two friends have been named in the case crime and the Section 376 of I.P.C. deleted and Sections 376-D, 323, 504 of I.P.C. added and on 28.01.2023 the charge sheet No. 38 of 2023 has been filed against the applicant and investigating continued so far concerned to the other accused of the case crime. That the further statement of the opposite party No. 2 has been recorded by the concerned police on 01.04.2023, in which the investigating officer asked the some questions to the opposite party No. 2 regarding the alleged incident and involvement of the friends of the applicant and his wife, in reply to the questions put up by the concerned police the opposite party No. 2 has not given proper reply. The typed copy of the further statement dated 01.04.2023 of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer submitted another charge sheet No. 38A of 2023 on 01.04.2023 in which the name of the wife and two friends of the applicant dropped and his brother namely Vikas Maruya has been charge sheeted. The photocopy of the charge sheet No. 38A of 2023 dated 01.04.2023 submitted by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant and daughter of the opposite party No. 2 namely Shivani were in love and solemnized their marriage with the consent of the opposite party No. 2. That the mother of the applicant’s wife i.e. opposite party No. 2 wants to involve her daughter in flesh trading for she was not ready hence she annoyed with her daughter and applicant also. Meanwhile, the applicant was sent to jail in connection with a forged and fabricated case, then the opposite party No. 2 called her at home and thereafter her lover namely Ravi Shankar raped the wife of the applicant, in which the opposite party No. 2 helped him. That here it is relevant to mention that the opposite party No. 2 have only two daughters and elder is the wife of the applicant. That the opposite party No. 2 is also annoyed with the applicant and his wife as the concerned police have filed the charge sheet against her and another in connection with Case Crime No. 174 of 2022 on 26.07.2022. That the wife of the applicant i.e. daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has also filed several civil cases before the competent court of law against her mother i.e. opposite party No. 2 to restrain her as she was selling and gifting the ancestral property of her father to her lover or others. The details of the suit filed by between the wife of the applicant and the opposite party No. 2 are as under: Case No. 2476 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Rekha) which is pending before competent court. Case No. 2834 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Sangeeta Devi and another) which is pending before competent court. Case No. 2387 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Rekha Devi and others) which is pending before competent court. Case No. 2124 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Sheela and others) which is pending before competent court which is pending before competent court. Case No. 2476 of 2022 (Shivani Maurya Vs Sangeeta Devi), which is pending before competent court. Original Suit No. 959 of 2022 (Sangeeta Vs Shivani Maurya), which is dismissed on 02.11.2022. That the opposite party No. 2 and her lover tried their best to convince the wife of the applicant for withdrawing the civil and criminal cases, lodged by her but she is not ready for the same and when the opposite party No. 2 failed in their aim then she lodged the first information report against the applicant on false and incorrect facts. That the opposite party No. 2 and her lover are habitual offender and almost similar case has been lodged against them alongwith other accused bearing Case Crime No. 402 of  2022 under Sections 376, 328, 506, 120-B of I.P.C. at Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raebareli on 18.09.2022. That after lodging the said first information report, in retaliation as a counterblast to the first information report dated 16.04.2022 lodged by the wife of the applicant, a first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant. That while the several cases lodged by the wife of the applicant against the opposite party No. 2 hence there is no chance that the applicant went to the house of the opposite party No. 2 and she allow to him to stay at her home on 17.10.2022 as alleged by him. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That apart from above mentioned case crime, in which the first bail application is being moving by the applicant, some other false and wrong cases have been lodged against the applicant, which are as under: Case Crime No. 381 of 2018 under Sections 323, 386, 411, 504, 506, 507, 147, 452 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5A of S.C. and S.T. Act related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below on 05.02.2019. Case Crime No. 217 of 2018 under Sections 386, 504, 506 of I.P.C. related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail in Bail Application No. 1046 of 2018 by the learned court below on 28.07.2018. Case Crime No. 409 of 2018 under Sections 323, 386, 504, 506 of I.P.C. related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below on 22.01.2017. Case Crime No. 450 of 2017 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act and 411 of I.P.C. related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 09 of 2020 under Sections 394, 506, 427, 411 of I.P.C. related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below on 06.02.2020. Case Crime No. 389 of 2017 under Sections 392, 411 of I.P.C. related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 144 of 2017 under Sections 392, 411 of I.P.C. related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 427 of 2017 under Sections 392, 411 of I.P.C. related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 578 of 2016 under Sections 2(8)(1) and 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act related to Police Station – Fursatganj, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 157 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 386 of I.P.C. related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below on 31.05.2017. Case Crime No. 160 of 2017 under Sections 352, 452, 394, 427, 336 of I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below on 09.06.2017. Case Crime No. 309 of 2021 under  Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act related to Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raiberelly, in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopies of the bail orders passed by the learned court below as well as this Hon'ble High Court are annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO (Exclusive), First, Raebareli bearing Bail Application No. 1041 of 2023 but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 24.04.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 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 opposite party No. 2 and their family members in malafide intention. That the case of the opposite party No. 2 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 opposite party No. 2 is found to be improbable, prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. If evidence of opposite party No. 2 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 there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That there is no chance of 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 26.01.2023 without committing any offence. 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 . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  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 Case Crime No. 503 of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 5/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 related to the Police Station – Mill Area, District – Raebareli, during pendency of case.


I, Raunak Singh aged about 20 years son of Shri Ramkaran resident of ilha, Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Raebareli, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Farmer, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the Nephew/pariokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. The photograph 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 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 on behalf of the applicant before the  and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 09.03.2023 at 11.14 hours against the applicant which has been registered as Case Crime No. 52 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, of I.P.C. related to the Police Station – Shivratanganj, District – Amethi. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 09.03.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That the prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that, on 09.03.2023 at about 2.00 A.M., the applicant eloped the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 from the house of the opposite party No. 2. That the applicant submits before this Hon’ble Court that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in his first information report dated 09.03.2023. The first information report is highly doubtful and there is no satisfactory explanation for the said reason. That the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded on 09.03.2023 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which he almost repeated the averment of the first information report dated 09.03.2023. The photocopy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 09.03.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recovered by the concerned police on 19.03.2023 and the concerned police in which the recovery memo was prepared, which creates doubt upon the action of the concerned police. The photo/typed copy of the recovery memo of the victim of the case crime is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That on the very same day i.e. on 19.03.2023 the statement of the victim has been recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she stated that on 09.03.2023 around 02.00 hours she left her house with the applicant and solemnized marriage with the applicant in Temple at District - Ayodhya. The photo/ type copy of the statement of the victim dated 19.03.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That as per the statement of 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim confirmed that she was in a relationship with the applicant and that her family was against them. So with mutual consent, she decided to leave her house with her own WILL and solemnized the marriage with the applicant. That it is most relevant to mention here that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in his first information report dated 09.03.2023. That the victim was medically examined on 20.03.2023 at District Hospital, Gauriganj, District - Amethi and her medical report does not corroborate the prosecution story. The photo/ typed copy of the medical report dated 20.03.2023 of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the concerned court on 22.03.2023, in which she was tortured by her parents therefore she leave her house with her own WILL with her boyfriend (the applicant) on 09.03.2023 and solemnized marriage on same day at District - Ayodhya. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 22.03.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 6 to this application. That the victim further stated that after their marriage went to Delhi where they resided for 6 days as husband and wife. Later on, the brother of the applicant brings back the applicant and her via a four-wheeler. That thereafter the further statement of the opposite party No. 2 has been recorded by the concerned police on 21.03.2023, in which he has given his explanation regarding the wrong name of the father of the applicant. That during the investigation of the case crime, Section 376 of I.P.C. and 5/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 was added on 21.03.2023 by the investigating officer. That the concerned police have asked for the date of birth of the victim from the Principal of the victim’s school, which has been given stating therein the date of birth of the victim as 20.07.2006. The photo/typed copy of the reply given to the concerned police by the Principal is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer submitted charge sheet No. 72 of 2023 on 19.04.2023 against the applicant under Section 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. and 5/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. That the real fact of the case is that the victim stated that she is more than 18 years and she fall in love with the applicant and she proposed to the applicant and the same has been accepted by him and they loved each other and decided to marry. That meanwhile the opposite party No. 2 came to know about the relationship between the applicant and his daughter thereafter he has beaten the victim and locked her in his house. That thereafter the victim left her house on 09.03.2023 and came with the applicant and solemnized marriage in District - Ayodhya and residing in Delhi as husband-wife. That the victime of the case crime was brought to Amethi by the brother of the applicant despite a false story cooked up by the concerned police and the opposite party No. 2, showing that the victim has been recovered by the concerned police, in which the opposite party No. 2 is witness. That the opposite party No. 2 is well aware that his daughter i.e. victim is major in age but he has lodged the first information report saying therein that the victim is a minor. That there is no 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 according to the prosecution story, it is clearly revealed that the story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant/accused. That apart from the present case crime, in which the first bail application is being moved by the applicant, there is no criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant had filed a application for bail before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (POCSO Act) - II, Raebareli bearing Bail Application No. 1687 of 2023 but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 25.05.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 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 opposite party No. 2 and their family members in malafide intention. 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 languishing in jail since 25.03.2023 without committing any offence. 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 in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail Case Crime No. 52 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. and 5/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 related to the Police Station – Shivratanganj, District – Amethi, during the pendency of the case, in the interest of justice.


I, Jai Prakash Maurya aged about 28 years son of Shri Baijnath Maurya resident of Village – Bhitari, Post – Pariyawan, District – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the pairokar of the aforesaid case and he is nephew of the applicant and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph 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 this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the real name of the applicant is Amrit Lal Maurya but in first information report the name of the applicant mentioned as “Amat Lal Maurya”. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That The first information report is lodged by informant/victim namely Pushpa Maurya as the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 103 of 2015 under section 376, 313, 323, 504,506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh on 29.07.2015 at 16:00 hours against the applicant/accused and 5 others family members. The incident took place near about 6 months ago. The true photo/type copy of the first information report dated 29.07.2015 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report the prosecution story is, the informant as stated in her age about 20 years. The son of the applicant namely Praveen Kumar Maurya and informant have physical relation since 2 years and thereafter the informant became pregnant and requested to the son of the applicant to marry with her but he was denied for same. Thereafter the informant informed to the applicant and his family members and start living with the family of the applicant. That one day the all accused of the case crime forcefully fed a medicine/tablet and brings anywhere and made abortion and throw out from his house. That the informant was come back itself her father’s home and try to lodge the first information report but same has not been lodged even an compromise has been done for arranging the marriage, but thereafter the applicant and his family members are abusing and threatened for her life. That medical of the victim was done at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh on 31.07.2015 at 02:00 P.M. and Supplementary Medical Report was prepared on 06.08.2015.  According to supplementary medical report the “Radiological age is above 18 years and also no spermatozoa seen.” The photo/type copy of the medical report dated 31.07.2015 and supplementary medical report dated 06.08.2015 is being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the statement of the informant/victim recorded on 10.08.2015 under section 164 Cr.P.C., in which the victim stated as per her first information report till live in applicant’s house and thereafter she change her statement and stated the his son Praveen give a medicine to her and furnished her abortion and sent her to his parent’s home. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 10.08.2015 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the victim clearly stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the applicant was not involve in the said case crime. The applicant is father of the Praveen due to this his name has been impleaded in the said case crime. That it is also clear in said statement, the applicant has not given any medicine to the informant and also not involved in furnishing the abortion of her. That in first information report, the informant stated she was brought anywhere for furnishing the abortion but in statement under 164 Cr.P.C. the abortion furnished at applicant’s house. That the real story of the case is that  due to familiar reason as the father of the informant/victim was died in earlier age, her three sister are married and her brother solemnized his marriage and the informant avoided by her family, as such she is immoral lady and having physical relationship with unknown persons. That the informant pregnant during her enjoyment and for escaping herself from the defamation in social or village, she came to house of the applicant and falsely alleged against his son and threaten by her to applicant and his family for solemnize the marriage with son of the applicant, when offer of the informant rejected by the applicant. That after rejection of the proposal of the informant, she become annoyed and lodged First Information Report against the applicant and his family members on the wrong and incurred facts. That the victim as herself stated in her first information report dated 29.07.2015, she is major in age and has sound mind therefore she is not influence by anyone in regard to make physical relation but as she is not decent lady, she implicate the applicant and his family members. That the first information report lodged by the informant is too much delayed more than six months and during this period she never approached to any authority concerned to take appropriate action against the accused. That a false story cooked up by the informant and parent of the victim for obtaining the money form the state government, which is given to the rapped victim. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society. He has never involved in any criminal activities ever. That the applicant is innocent and due to obtaining money for the state government and from the applicant for withdrawing the case, falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of 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 02.08.2015. 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 . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 03.09.2015. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 03.09.2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 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 during pendency of case.


I, Jai Prakash Pushapar aged about 48 years son of Shri Chiraunhi Lal resident of Village – Gayaspur, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Gardner, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is brother-in-law (sala) of applicant and doing pairvi of Applicant in the above noted case and duly authorized by him for filing instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph of the deponent is being pated on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail application on behalf of the Applicant before the Hon'ble Court and not 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. 50 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh on 03.04.2021 at 23.52 hours against the applicant and several other accused persons. The certified copy/ typed copy of the first information report dated 03.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, which has been lodged by Shri Doodhnath Singh Yadav, Station House Officer, Police Station - Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’),  the prosecution story is in nutshell that the informant lodged a first information report against the applicant and several other persons on 03.04.2021 about 23.52 hours and stated that the informant and his team was on patrolling of area on 02.04.2021 and that time the team of Surveillance Cell, Prayagraj Zone met with the informant and informed that his team got information from his informant (eq[kfcj), who told the all 19 names of the accused and stated that from Parsipur Cowshed they are involved in the smuggling the adulterated liquor. That the raid has been conducted by the informant along with his team on 02.04.2021 around 16.40 hours at alleged place of occurrence and seized lot of adulterated liquor and no anyone arrested by the concerned police at time raid. That the name of the applicant was told by the informer (eq[kfcj) of the concerned police prior to the raid and he was not present there and on basis of which the applicant is named in the first information report. That the name of the applicant is shown at serial No. 14 in the accused column impugned first information report dated 03.04.2021. That the impugned first information report dated 03.04.2021 is lodged after one day delayed i.e. on 03.04.2021 by the concerned police without giving any reason for delay. That the applicant is common man of society and has no concerned with the adulterated liquor and during the raid the applicant were not present at the place of incident. When the applicant came into knowledge that the concerned police searching the applicant in aforesaid case crime, then the applicant has surrendered before the court concerned on 24.06.2021. That the real fact is that the applicant are falsely implicated in the case crime due to political reasons by the some villagers, which has been explained by the concerned police for the ulterior motive. That the applicant and his family members were not supporting to a candidate of the Village Pradhan, who has good political approach, who has money & men power. That the applicant was threatened by the village pradhan candidate to give his support alongwith his family but the applicant has denied for the same. That therefore the applicant has threatened by the village Pradhan candidate to face consequences of the denial and said that he will ensured that the applicant send to  jail soon. That on 03.04.2021, a first information report has been lodged by the concerned police due extraneous consideration, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That it further relevant to mention that the Tanki test of alleged adulterated liquor has not been conducted by the Excise Officer concerned and even prior to information regarding said liquor, while the Excise Inspector was present at time of alleged raid, even the informant and Excise Inspector were themselves not assured that the recovered liquor is adulterated. That on bare perusal of the first information report, it is also evident that there were no witnesses of raid conducted by the informant, which also creates doubts upon the story of the informant, which itself concocted and false. That the applicant is in jail since 24.06.2021 without committing any offense as alleged against them. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that no one saw the occurrence and there are no any independent eye witnesses of the said recovery and it is a case of forge, fabricated and false and there is no any evidence against the applicant. That the applicant has no concerned with recovered adulterated liquor in any manner as such the Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60(2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh have not followed him. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh bearing Bail Application No. 1552 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60(2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and when Section 60A of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, which has been rejected by the court concerned without going to fact and records. The free certified copy of bail rejection order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the court concerned is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That another accused Anoop Singh of aforesaid case crime has been granted bail by the learned court below on 14.07.2021 in similar sections. The photocopy of the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the court concerned is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That till date there is no any chemical report stating therein that the recovered liquor was obnoxious or spurious for human consumption. That the applicant has a criminal history except this false case and detail of the said case is as under: Case No. RC-2 (S) 2013/C.B.I./SC-1/New Delhi under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 332, 353, 506 and 201 of IPC read with 149 of IPC and 27 Arms Act, in which nothing has been found against applicant and he has been exonerated from the charges. The photocopy of the supplementary charge sheet filed by CBI is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and he has no concern. 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 common man of the society. He has never convicted in any case and not involved in any criminal activities ever. That there is no chance of applicant’s 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 will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that he 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 in connection with Case Crime No. 50 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., 60A, 60(2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, 63A of Copyright Act, 1957 and 103, 104 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 registered at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh during pendency of trial.


I, Smt. Reena Singh aged about 40 years wife of Shri Chandra Pratap Singh resident of Village – Sheetal Patti, Police Station – Jethwara, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Housewife, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is wife of applicant and doing pairvi of applicant in the above noted case and duly authorized by him for filing instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association 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 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 this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not 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. 695 of 2021 under Sections 285, 407, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali City, District – Pratapgarh on 21.08.2021 at 17.40 hours against the applicant/accused and along with other 13 named persons. The first information report is lodged by Inspector, Special Task Force, U.P., Pragyagraj Unit namely Shri Atul Kumar Singh. The photo/type copy of the first information report dated 21.08.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report the prosecution story is in nutshell, that the informant and his team (other police personnel) got information regarding of below standard petrol/diesel tanker deliver at Tilka Automobile Essar Petrol Pump in furtherance said information, the team conduct raid at said place, were 4 persons have arrested. That the applicant is common man of society and has no concerned with the alleged recovery without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime for showing good work of the police. That the real fact is that the applicant is poor person and was seriously ill. In his treatment he spends lot of money and was operated by the doctor concerned. The photocopy of the medical papers of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the applicant needed money for his and family survival due to which he started working at Tilka Petrol Pump from 15.08.2021 on daily basis @ Rs. 200/- per day. The Manager of the petrol pump offered the applicant, if he worked for two shifts, then he got Rs. 400/- per day. That the applicant needed money hence he accepted the offer of the Maganer and started working in two shifts form 18.08.2021. That on 21.08.2021, the applicant has been arrested by the concerned police without any rhyme and reason showing the involvement of the applicant in nexus of the supply of the below standard petrol and diesel. That the concerned police also found that the said petrol pump was running without having permission. That here it is relevant to mention that the applicant has no concerned with any illegality, which was happening at petrol pump by the owners or other persons. The applicant was just daily basis employee in said petrol pump. That the applicant cannot be hold guilty, for the illegal activity of the owner of the petrol pump. That the applicant/accused in jail from 21.08.2021 without committing any offense as alleged against him. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that no one saw the occurrence and there are no any independent eye witnesses of the said recovery and it is a case of forge, fabricated and false and there is no any evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant/accused has no concerned with recovered below standard petrol and diesel in any manner as such the Sections 285, 407, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and 3/7 The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at Police Station – Kotwali City, District – Pratapgarh have not followed him. That the applicant had applied for bail before bearing No. 1923 of 2021 the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act),  Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 17.09.2021. The free certified copy of bail rejection order dated 17.09.2021 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and he has no concern, he was just 5 day old employee of the said petrol pump. That the applicant having two children (i) Utsav aged about 11 years and (ii) Anjali aged about 13 years and pursuing their education and due absence of the applicant their education is badly affected. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society. That the applicant has no criminal history and not involved in any criminal activities ever. That there is no chance of 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 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 . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  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 in connection with Case Crime No. 695 of 2021 lodged under Sections 285, 407, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and 3/7 The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at Police Station – Kotwali City, District – Pratapgarh, during pendency of trial.


I, Pappu Saroj aged about 24 years son of Shri Ram Lakhan resident of Govind Rasoolpur, Police Station - Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – High School, 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 and duly authorized by him for filing instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph of the deponent is being pated on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not 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 have falsely been implicated in case crime No. 222 of 2014 under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 I.P.C., 60, 63, 72 Excise Act, 3/4 Copyright Act and 103/104 Trade Mark Act registered at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh on 01.11.2014 at 18:15 hours against the applicant/accused and 3 named persons and 4-5 unknown persons. The first information report is lodged by SHO Shri Amit Pandey, Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh. The true photo/type copy of the first information report dated 01.11.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report the prosecution story is, on 30.10.2014 when the informant and his team (other police persons) on routine patrol, during patrolling he got information in regard of transportation of illegal liquor. On basis of above information the informant and his team arrested the applicant with 4 boxes of “King Krazy Dry Gin for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only, Maura Distilleries and Bottlers (P. Ltd.)” each boxes contained 48 bottle of 180ML and 3 boxes of Deshi bear of “Kingfisher Strong Premium Bear 500 ML for sale in Haryana only not for sale Uttar Pradesh” each box contained 24 bottle. That according to the first information report allegation against the applicant is driver of the vehicle, in which the above mentioned illegal liquor was recovered and at the time of arresting Rs. 150/- was also recovered from pocket of the applicant. That the applicant is poor persons and belongs to schedule caste, for livelihood the applicant purchased the vehicle Tata Ace on finance. The police persons always try to use the vehicle of the applicant free of cost when the applicant denied for same. Thereafter being aggrieved the concerned police persons falsely implicates the applicant in above noted case crime. That there is no concerned with recovered illegal liquor. On 31.10.2014 the concerned police contacted to the applicant and offered to move some household material from one place to another, on his request the brother of the applicant go with them with the vehicle. When his brother not came at home within time than applicant approached to the concerned police. Thereafter they falsely implicated in said case crime after demand of fare for transportation. That the applicant/accused in jail from 01.11.2014. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that no one saw the occurrence and there is no any independent eye witness of the said recovery and it is a case of forge, fabricated and false and there is no any evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society. He has never convicted in any case and not involved in any criminal activities ever. That there is no chance of 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 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 . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge (Gangster), Court No. 5, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 24.11.2014. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 24.11.2014 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicants be enlarged on bail during pendency of trial.