# Jai Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 66
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13228 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-ram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53435
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 376 D.A - Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section
5G/6 - On basis of F.I.R. lodged against
five persons, including applicant alleged
that while informant's sister was going to
give food to her grandmother in other
house, accused persons dragged her in
sugarcane field and they raped her - When
informant's mother and sister reached
sugarcane
field
looking
after
victim,
accused persons ran away, she was lying
in unconscious condition - Victim (PW-2)
supported
prosecution
in
her
examination-in-chief - She admitted that
she did not see miscreants' faces as her
eyes were closed, lost consciousness,
regaining it on next day - Reiterated
during cross-examination, not declared
hostile - Bail granted to co-accused on
factually
incorrect
submission
cannot
justify parity for applicant's release -
Another co-accused granted bail as no
allegation was made against him by
prosecutrix in her St.ment recorded by
trial
court
-
Prosecutrix
St.d
about
involvement of applicant in commission of
offence, her mother saw him at spot of
incident and when she reached there
applicant ran away - Hence, ground on
which co-accused granted bail is not
applicable to applicant. (Para 3, 15, 22 to
24)

Application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Jai Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
67
Tarun Kumar Vs Enforcement Directorate: 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1486, (Para 19)

## Text

66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2.
आवेदकगर्
असभयोजन
साक्षियों व पीडड़ता / सशकायतकतात को
िरायेंगे/धमकायेंगे नहीं।

3.
आवेदकगर्
न्यायालय
के
आदेशों का पालन करेंगे, वह परीिर् के
दौरान बबना कोई अनावश्यक स्र्गन सलए
ननयत नतथर् पर न्यायालय में उपण्स्र्त होंगे
तर्ा परीिर् में ईमानदारी से सहयोग करेंगे।

4. आवेदकगर् जमानत पर ररहा
होने के बाद जमानत की स्वतंत्रता का
दुरूपयोग
नही करेंगे और ककसी भी
अपराथधक गनतववथध में सलप्त नहीं होंगे न
कोई अपराथधक कृत्य करेंगे।

5. आवेदकगर् प्रत्यि या अप्रत्यि
रूप से मामले के तथ्यों से पररथचत ककसी
भी व्यण्क्त या पुसलस अथधकाररयों को कोई
प्रलोभन या धमकी नहीं देंगे न ही उनसे
कोई वायदा करेंगे, ण्जसके कारर् उन्हें
न्यायालय में तथ्यों को उजागर करने से
ववरत रहना पड़े।

उपरोक्त शतों में से ककसी के उल्लंघन
के मामले में परीिर् न्यायालय आवेदकगर्
की जमानत ननयमानुसार रद्द करने को
स्वतंत्र है।
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 66
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13228 of
2024

Jai Ram ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Brijesh Kumar, Karunakar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 376 D.A - Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section
5G/6 - On basis of F.I.R. lodged against
five persons, including applicant alleged
that while informant's sister was going to
give food to her grandmother in other
house, accused persons dragged her in
sugarcane field and they raped her - When
informant's mother and sister reached
sugarcane
field
looking
after
victim,
accused persons ran away, she was lying
in unconscious condition - Victim (PW-2)
supported
prosecution
in
her
examination-in-chief - She admitted that
she did not see miscreants' faces as her
eyes were closed, lost consciousness,
regaining it on next day - Reiterated
during cross-examination, not declared
hostile - Bail granted to co-accused on
factually
incorrect
submission
cannot
justify parity for applicant's release -
Another co-accused granted bail as no
allegation was made against him by
prosecutrix in her St.ment recorded by
trial
court
-
Prosecutrix
St.d
about
involvement of applicant in commission of
offence, her mother saw him at spot of
incident and when she reached there
applicant ran away - Hence, ground on
which co-accused granted bail is not
applicable to applicant. (Para 3, 15, 22 to
24)

Application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Jai Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
67
Tarun Kumar Vs Enforcement Directorate: 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1486, (Para 19)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Karunakar Srivastava, the
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Mohd. Asif Khan, learned Additional
Government Advocate-I for the State and
perused the records.

2. This is the second application
seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 660 of 2022, under
Sections 376 D.A. I.P.C. and Section 5G/6
of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police
Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur
Kheri.

3. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged
on
11.09.2022
against
five
persons,
including the applicant stating that while
the informant's sister aged about 15 years
was going to give food to her grand mother
in the other house. The accused persons
dragged her in a sugarcane field at about
9.30 p.m. on 10.09.2022 and they raped
her. When the informant's mother and
sister reached the sugarcane field looking
after the victim the accused persons ran
away and the victim was found lying in the
field in an unconscious condition.

4. In the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she
stated that she had been dragged in dark in
sugarcane field and she was raped while
she was unconscious. Her eyes were closed
as such she could not recognize the accused
persons, she recognized them from their
voices.

5. The statement of the victim's
mother was also recorded and she stated
that she had gone to look after her daughter
with her other daughter Vandana and she
had seen the accused persons inside the
sugarcane field. Upon seeing her coming,
the accused persons ran away and she
found her daughter lying unconscious in
the sugarcane field.

6. The medico legal examination
report of the victim mentions that vaginal
bleeding was present and the victim had
pain in genitals. Hymen of the victim was
freshly torn and there were signs of use of
forceful penetration of vaginal.

7. In the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated
that all the accused persons had raped her due
to which she had fallen unconscious. The
victim was taken to the Community Health
Centre, Mohammadi, from where she was
referred to the District Hospital Lakhimpur
Kheri. When her condition could not
improve, she was referred to Lucknow,
where she remained admitted till 13.09.2022.

8. A copy of the statement of the
informant recorded by the trial court has been
annexed with the bail application and he has
fully supported the F.I.R. version. The victim
has been examined as PW-2 and she has also
supported
the
F.I.R.
version
in
her
examination-in-chief. However, in her crossexamination she stated that she could not see
the culprits.

9. The victim's mother has also been
examined by trial court as PW-3 and she has
supported the prosecution case. Even in her
cross-examination she has categorically
stated that she had seen the applicant running
away from the place of incident.

10. The learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that two co-
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused persons namely Nikhil and Vimal
have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this court by means of
orders dated 28.08.2024 and 21.02.2025,
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
Nos.5494 of 2024 and 11145 of 2024.

11. The first bail application of coaccused Vimal was rejected and the second
application has been allowed on the ground
that the victim has turned hostile.

12. The learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that the victim has
stated in her cross-examination that she
could not see the culprits, the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail.

13.
The
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate-I
appearing
on
behalf of the State has opposed the prayer
for bail and he has submitted that the
offence committed by the applicant is
heinous in nature and he is not entitled to
be enlarged on bail by this court.

14. A perusal of the statements recorded
by trial court indicates that the informant has
supported the F.I.R. version and stated that
when he reached the spot, her sister was lying
unconscious in sugarcane field, her clothes
were untidy and open. There was soil on her
face and hair. She was taken in an
unconscious condition and an ambulance was
called and she was taken to Mohammadi
Hospital, from where she was taken to
District Hospital and on the next day she was
referred to Lucknow.

15. The victim has been examined as
PW-2 and she has supported the prosecution
case in her examination-in-chief. However, in
her cross-examination she stated that she
could not see the faces of miscreants as her
eyes were closed and thereafter she had fallen
unconscious
and
she
regained
her
consciousness on the next day. During her
cross-examination also the victim stated that
she could not see the faces of miscreants. The
victim has not been declared to be hostile.

16. The mother of the victim has been
examined as PW-3 and she has supported
the prosecution case. She stated that the
victim did not come back home, she had
gone to look for her along with her other daughter.
She has categorically stated that she had seen
Nikhil, Jairam (the applicant) and Pawan in the
field in the torch light and they started running
away after seeing her. The victim was lying
unconscious there. She was bleeding from her
vagina. They raised hue and cry whereupon her
husband, son and several villagers reached there
and they took the victim to home and thereafter
she was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. The
victim had told her in the hospital that Nikhil,
Jairam (the applicant), Pawan, Vimal and
Pushpendra had raped her. Even during her crossexamination the victim's mother stated that she
had seen Vimal coming on the way. She had seen
Jairam (the applicant), Pawan and Nikhil standing
there. Although, she had not seen the applicant
committing the misdeed, as soon as she reached
near the place of occurrence Jairam, Nikhil and
Pawan had ran away.

17. In response to another question the
victim's mother reiterated that she had seen
the applicant standing on the place of
incident and thereafter running away when
Jairam had seen her. She had identified the
face of the applicant.

18. The victim's father has been
examined by the trial court as PW-4 and he
has also supported the prosecution case.

19. Thus, the submission of learned
counsel for the applicant that the victim has
turned hostile is not correct.
5 All. Jai Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
69

20. So far as the question of grant of
bail to the applicant on the ground of parity
is concerned, the co-accused Nikhil has
been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of
this court by means of an order dated
28.08.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.5494 of 2024 considering
the submission of the learned counsel for
the applicant that the prosecutrix has not
supported the prosecution story during trial.
This court had accepted the submission by
having faith on the statement made by the
learned counsel for the applicant in that
case and the Court had not verified its
correctness. However, a perusal of the
statement of the prosecutrix shows that she
has fully supported the prosecution case.
Even in her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in her statement
recorded under Section 164, the prosecutrix
had stated that she had not seen the accused
persons as her eyes were closed and she
had identified the culprits from their voices.
Therefore, it is apparent that order dated
28.08.2024 granting bail to the co accused
Nikhil has been passed on the basis of an
incorrect factual submission made by the
learned Counsel for the applicant in that
case.

21. In Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement
Directorate: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"19. It is axiomatic that the
principle of parity is based on the
guarantee of positive equality before law
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, if any illegality or irregularity
has been committed in favour of any
individual or a group of individuals, or a
wrong order has been passed by a judicial
forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction
of the higher or superior court for
repeating
or
multiplying
the
same
irregularity or illegality or for passing
similar wrong order. Article 14 is not
meant to perpetuate the illegality or
irregularity. If there has been a benefit or
advantage conferred on one or a set of
people by any authority or by the court,
without legal basis or justification, other
persons could not claim as a matter of right
the benefit on the basis of such wrong
decision."

22. In view of the aforesaid law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
bail order passed in favour of co-accused
Nikhil by accepting a factually wrong
submission of the learned Counsel for the
applicant, cannot be made a ground to
claim release of the applicant on bail on the
ground of parity.

23. Another co-accused Vimal has
been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of
this Court by means of an order dated
21.02.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.11145 of 2024 on the
ground that the prosecutrix has not levelled
any allegation against the co-accused
Vimal in her statement recorded by the trial
court.

24. The prosecutrix has categorically
stated about the involvement of the
applicant in commission of offence. The
mother of the prosecutrix has clearly stated
that she had seen the applicant standing at
the spot of incident and as soon as she
reached there she had seen the applicant
running away. Therefore, the reason
mentioned in the order dated 21.02.2025
granting bail to co-accused Vimal is not
available to the applicant.

25. Without making any observation
which may affect the outcome of trial, I am
of the considered view that the facts and
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances of this case do not warrant
exercise of discretion of this court by
enlarging the applicant on bail. The bail
application is accordingly rejected.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 70
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA
SHARMA, J.

Capital Cases No. 1 of 2024

Shahid ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Narendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Araf Khan, G.A., Lihazur Rahman Khan

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Sections 302, 201 & 376DB - Protection
of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012 - Sections 5 & 6 - Murder and Rape
-
Death
sentence
-
Circumstances
evidence - Relevancy - No witnesses were
produce to proof fard regarding taking of
underwear - Effect - Held, the case is
based
on
circumstantial
evidence,
therefore, the prosecution is to prove each
link
in
the
chain
of
circumstances
indicating the guilt of the accused but the
fard paper no. 14A/1, F.S.L. & D.N.A.
reports paper nos. 15A & 50A have been
left unproved though relied by the learned
trial court in convicting and sentencing
the
accused
without
giving
him
opportunity to explain about it - High
Court remanded back to the learned trial
court to summon the witnesses as court
witnesses to prove fard regarding taking
of underwear from the dead body of the
deceased and scientific experts associated
with the preparation and issuance of the
F.S.L./D.N.A.
report
with
the
entire
supporting material and opportunity of
cross-examination be also given to the
accused. (Para 24 and 26)
B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 313 - Trial court
considered the FSL report, while passing
the death sentence order - But the report
has
not
been
placed
before
the
accused/appellant for the purpose of
providing him an opportunity to explain
the same u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - No relevant
question regarding DNA report was put to
appellant - Effect - Held, it is settled
principle of law that any incriminating
piece of evidence to be relied upon by the
learned trial court for conviction must be
provided to the accused to enable him to
explain about its contents however the
said exercise has not been undertaken by
the learned court, which amounts to a
glaring error on the part of the learned
trial court and renders the order of
conviction bad in law. (Para 19)
Appeal allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Anokhilal Vs St. of M.P.; AIR 2020 SC 232
2. Criminal Appeal No. 166/1668 of 2021; Irfan
@ Bhayu Mevati Vs The St. of Madhya Pradesh
decided on 16.01.2025
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the
appellant against the judgment and order
dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned
Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional
Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Special
Session Trial No. 921 of 2023 (State Vs.
Shahid) arising out of Crime No. 179 of
2023, under Section 302, 201, 376DB IPC
and Section 5/6 Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station
Kampil, District Farrukhabad, whereby