# State of U.P v. Ajeet S/o Omveer

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1186
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-26
- **Case number:** Government Appeal Defective No. 421 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-ajeet-s-o-omveer-53854
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

under Sections 376, 323 IPC and Section 3/4
POCSO Act was justified, and if the High Court
should grant leave to appeal against the
acquittal.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164, 173(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 323, -
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Ajeet S/o Omveer
1187
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 - Section 3, 4
- Defective Government Appeal - challenging the
acquittal of accused in Sessions Trial - under
Sections 376, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO
Act - Trial court acquitted accused on benefit of
doubt
as
victim
retracted
allegations,
eyewitnesses
turned
hostile,
and
medical
evidence was inconclusive - Appeal against
acquittal - scope of High Court's interference -
State argued that, trial court erred by giving
undue weight to contradictions and ignoring
victim's earlier statements under Sections 161
and 164 Cr.P.C. - The Court, after considering
submissions
and
reviewing
the
record,
emphasized
the
settled
legal
principles
governing appeals against acquittal referring to
precedents such as Bannareddy v. State of
Karnataka
(2018),
Jayamma
v.
State
of
Karnataka (2021), Virendra Singh v. State of
U.P. (2022), and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar
(2022), - Court further reiterated that, court
should not reappreciate evidence unless the trial
court's findings suffer from grave infirmities and
acquittals should not be overturned merely on
minor contradictions when the prosecution case
itself is riddled with inconsistencies - the trial
court's acquittal was held to be a possible and
reasonable view, which could not be substituted
by the High Court - Accordingly, the application
for leave to appeal was rejected - and as a
consequence, the government appeal was
dismissed.(Para - 16, 17, 18)
Govt. Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Bannareddy and others v. State of Karnataka
(2018) 5 SCC 790
Jayamma v. State of Karnataka (2021) 6 SCC
213
Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others
(2022) 3 ADJ 354 DB
Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and another
(2022) 3 SCC 471

LIST OF ACTS
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Appeal against acquittal - voluntarily causing
hurt - rape - trial - acquittal - Benefit of doubt -
Hostile witnesses - Victim testimony retraction -
Medical evidence inconclusive - Leave to appeal
- Government appeal.

CASE ARISING FROM
Sessions Trial No.354 of 2019, State of U.P. v.
Ajeet and others - Arising out of Case Crime
No.113 of 2019, Police Station Amaopur, District
Kasganj - Judgment dated 6.2.2025 by Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Kasganj.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Rakesh Pandey sr.
Adv. assisted by Shri Nitin Sharma.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Chandan Singh
AGA and Shri Manish Singh.

## Text

1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reflects before it statements of P.W.-1
(opposite party no.2), P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
have been recorded and P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
are the injured witnesses of the case and
these witnesses stated that on 12.11.2010,
revisionists along with others made assault
due to which, three persons sustained
injuries including Bahadur Sonkar (P.W.-2)
and Lilly Sonkar (P.W.-3) but it reflects
that FIR of the present case was lodged on
12.02.2011 i.e. after three months through
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and even application under 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was moved on 8.12.2010 i.e. after one
month, therefore, there is inordinate delay
in lodging the FIR of the present case. It
reflects while summoning the revisionists
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. court concerned
did not consider this fact.

26. Further, from the impugned order
dated 30.10.2023, it could not be reflected
that trial court recorded any finding,
whether more than prima-facie case is
made out or not against the revisionists,
which was necessary in the light of the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench of
Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh
(supra).

27. Further, after considering the fact
that there is inordinate delay in lodging the
FIR, the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 recorded before the trial court do
not appear to be of such quality on the basis
of which, revisionists should be summoned
by exercising power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. as from their statements, it could
not be reflected that more than prima-facie
case is made out against them.

28. It reflects from the impugned order
dated 30.10.2023 that without properly
analyzing the facts and circumstances of
the case, trial court blindly accepted the
statements of P.W.-1 (opposite party no.2),
P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and summoned the
revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
which was not permissible.

29. Therefore, from the discussion
made above, in considered view of this
Court, impugned order dated 30.10.2023 is
illegal and is liable to be set-aside.

30. Accordingly, impugned order
dated 30.10.2023 is hereby set aside.
Instant revision stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1186
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Government Appeal Defective No. 421 of 2025

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Ajeet S/o Omveer ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Patanjali Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the trial court's acquittal of accused
Ajeet in Sessions Trial arising out of case crime
under Sections 376, 323 IPC and Section 3/4
POCSO Act was justified, and if the High Court
should grant leave to appeal against the
acquittal.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164, 173(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 323, -
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Ajeet S/o Omveer
1187
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 - Section 3, 4
- Defective Government Appeal - challenging the
acquittal of accused in Sessions Trial - under
Sections 376, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO
Act - Trial court acquitted accused on benefit of
doubt
as
victim
retracted
allegations,
eyewitnesses
turned
hostile,
and
medical
evidence was inconclusive - Appeal against
acquittal - scope of High Court's interference -
State argued that, trial court erred by giving
undue weight to contradictions and ignoring
victim's earlier statements under Sections 161
and 164 Cr.P.C. - The Court, after considering
submissions
and
reviewing
the
record,
emphasized
the
settled
legal
principles
governing appeals against acquittal referring to
precedents such as Bannareddy v. State of
Karnataka
(2018),
Jayamma
v.
State
of
Karnataka (2021), Virendra Singh v. State of
U.P. (2022), and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar
(2022), - Court further reiterated that, court
should not reappreciate evidence unless the trial
court's findings suffer from grave infirmities and
acquittals should not be overturned merely on
minor contradictions when the prosecution case
itself is riddled with inconsistencies - the trial
court's acquittal was held to be a possible and
reasonable view, which could not be substituted
by the High Court - Accordingly, the application
for leave to appeal was rejected - and as a
consequence, the government appeal was
dismissed.(Para - 16, 17, 18)
Govt. Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Bannareddy and others v. State of Karnataka
(2018) 5 SCC 790
Jayamma v. State of Karnataka (2021) 6 SCC
213
Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others
(2022) 3 ADJ 354 DB
Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and another
(2022) 3 SCC 471

LIST OF ACTS
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Appeal against acquittal - voluntarily causing
hurt - rape - trial - acquittal - Benefit of doubt -
Hostile witnesses - Victim testimony retraction -
Medical evidence inconclusive - Leave to appeal
- Government appeal.

CASE ARISING FROM
Sessions Trial No.354 of 2019, State of U.P. v.
Ajeet and others - Arising out of Case Crime
No.113 of 2019, Police Station Amaopur, District
Kasganj - Judgment dated 6.2.2025 by Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Kasganj.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Rakesh Pandey sr.
Adv. assisted by Shri Nitin Sharma.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Chandan Singh
AGA and Shri Manish Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

Order on Criminal Misc. Delay
Condonation Application No. NIL of
2025.

Heard Mr. Rahul Asthana, learned
AGA appearing for the State.

A delay of 103 days has been reported.

Perused the affidavit in support of the
delay condonation application, which in
our opinion is satisfactorily explained.

The application is allowed.

Order
on
Leave
to
Appeal
Application No.Nil of 2025.

Heard Mr. Rahul Asthana, learned
AGA appearing for the appellant-State of
UP and perused the record.

Present government appeal has been
preferred against the judgement and order
dated 6.2.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kasganj in
Sessions Trials No. 354 of 2019, State of
U.P. Versus Ajeet and others, (arising out
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Case Crime No. 113 of 2019), under
Sections 376, 323 IPC and Section 3⁄4
POCSO Act, Police Station Amaopur,
District Kasganj.

Factual matrix of the case is that on
29.07.2019 at about 1.30 P.M. informant's
minor daughter aged about 16 years went
from home to maize field to defecate. On
reaching the maize field, accused Ajeet
arrived
there
and
caught
hold
the
informant's
daughter
and
established
physical relation with her and also beaten
her. It is also narrated that this incident was
witnessed by Prem Pal, Subhash, Sunil and
Santosh. It is also mentioned that at the
time of alleged incident informant was
present at Etah District to look after her
mother, but when she back to home her
victim daughter told the whole incident to
her. Thereafter, informant alongwith her
victim daughter went to police station,
where she presented a written tahreer, on
that basis, the first information report has
been
lodged
against
the
accused
Respondent-Ajeet on 29.07.2019 at 13.30
hrs.

During
investigation,
Investigating
Officer visited the place of occurrence and
prepared the site plan and recorded the
statement of the witnesses and after
collecting the evidence against the accused-
respondent submitted a police report, under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C before the Court
concerned.
Charge
for
the
aforesaid
offences was framed and read over to
accused
respondent
who
denied
the
prosecution allegation and claim to be tried.

In
support
of
prosecution
case,
witnesses
PW-1
Victim,
PW-2
Smt.
Umesha, PW-3 Ashok and PW-4 Dr. Love
Kumar Chhatwal, PW-5 HC 294 Mridul
Pratap Singh, PW-6 Dr. Sandesh Aarekh,
PW-7 Inspector Virendra Singh Indaulia,
PW-8 Prempal, PW-9 Atendra, PW-10
Sunil, PW-11 Subhash, PW-12 Mordhawaj
Singh and PW-13, Dr. Khalid Salman were
produced and examined before the Court
below.

The judgement of the acquittal passed
by the learned trial Court on the ground
that the victim was stated to be about 18 to
21 years of her age at the time of alleged
incident i.e. on 29.07.2019 and allegation
was that accused person committed rape on
her and also beaten. Incident was witnesses
by Prem Pal, Subhash, Sunil and Santosh.
Prem Pal is examined as PW-8 who has not
uttered
single
words
in
respect
of
commission of rape by the accused and
turned hostile. Another witness Subhash-
PW-11 who has been shown as an eye
witness in the first information report
uttered in his examination-in-chief that the
time of alleged incident, he himself did not
go to the field and he had not seen the
occurrence. He also turned hostile. Another
witness of fact Sunil, PW-10 has stated that
he has not seen the occurrence of the rape.
Names of remaining witnesses of the fact
are Atendra PW-9, Subhash PW-11,
Mordhwaj, PW-12, who has not been
mentioned in the first information report,
but they were examined who has given the
only statement to the effect that they have
seen the accused Ajeet when he was
running away from the field. Learned trial
Court further found that there is a evidence
of a star witnesses i.e. victim PW-1 and she
stated that nothing was happened with her.
She also stated in her cross-examination
that accused Ajeet did not ravish her and
she clarified that whatever she told to
Investigating Officer that was on the
instance of her mother. She also narrated
that her mother has threatened her and her
brother also beaten and asked her to make
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Ajeet S/o Omveer
1189
the allegation against the accused- Ajeet.
Thus, the learned trial Court found that
testimony of the victim is inconsistent and
that does not inspire confidence. The trial
court also noticed that the victim has stated
in her cross-examination that nothing
wrong was committed on her. The victim
was medically examined by Dr. Sandesh
Aarekh,PW-6 and specifically stated that if
the rape happened to occur then hymen was
not found old and torn. She also stated that
she has not given definite opinion about
sexual assault. Under such circumstances,
the Court below found that the prosecution
could not prove his case beyond doubt and
the accused was given benefit of doubt and
judgement of acquittal was passed.

Per contra, Sri Rahul Asthana, learned
AGA submits that the trial Court has erred in
appreciating the evidence on record. He
further submits that the victim was of tender
age, who clearly supported the prosecution
version in her statement recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore,
there was no reason to disbelieve the
prosecution story. He further submits that it is
not necessary for the prosecution to produce
all the witnesses and it would not have
adverse effect on the prosecution case. He
further submits that the learned trial Court has
given undue weightage to the minor
contradiction and inconsistencies occurred in
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He
further submits that on the basis of testimony
of the witnesses in totality the prosecution has
proved the charge against the accused
respondent but findings recorded by the
learned trial Court is perverse and is not one
of
the
possible
view.
Submission,
therefore, is that the judgement and order
of acquittal passed by the trial Court
requires
serious
consideration
and
reversal and the accused respondent
herein is liable to be convicted.

We
have
considered
the
rival
submissions and perused the record.

Before proceeding further, it would be
appropriate to take note of law on the
appeal against acquittal.

In the case of Bannareddy and others
vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2018)
5 SCC 790, in paragraph 10, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has considered the power and
jurisdiction of the High Court while
interfering in an appeal against acquittal
and in paragraph 26 it has been held that
"the
High
Court
should
not
have
reappreciated the evidence in its entirety,
especially when there existed no grave
infirmity in the findings of the trial Court.
There exists no justification behind setting
aside the order of acquittal passed by the
trial
Court,
especially
when
the
prosecution case suffers from several
contradictions and infirmities"

In Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka,
2021 (6) SCC 213, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been pleased to explain the
limitations of exercise of power of scrutiny
by the High Court in an appeal against
against an order of acquittal passed by a
Trial Court in the following words:

"The
power
of
scrutiny
exercisable by the High Court under
Section 378, CrPC should not be routinely
invoked where the view formed by the trial
court was a ''possible view'. The judgment
of the trial court cannot be set aside merely
because the High Court finds its own view
more probable, save where the judgment of
the trial court suffers from perversity or the
conclusions drawn by it were impossible if
there was a correct reading and analysis of
the evidence on record. To say it
differently, unless the High Court finds that
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there is complete misreading of the
material evidence which has led to
miscarriage of justice, the view taken by
the trial court which can also possibly be a
correct view, need not be interfered with.
This self-restraint doctrine, of course, does
not denude the High Court of its powers to
re-appreciate the evidence, including in an
appeal against acquittal and arrive at a
different firm finding of fact."

In a judgement of this Court in
Virendra Singh vs. State of UP and
others, 2022 (3) ADJ 354 DB, the law on
the issue involved has been considered. For
ready reference, paragraphs 10, 11 and 12
are quoted as under:

"10. In the case of Babu vs. State
of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1179, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed that while dealing with a
judgment of acquittal, the appellate court
has to consider the entire evidence on
record, so as to arrive at a finding as to
whether the views of the trial Court were
perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The
appellate court is entitled to consider
whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the
trial Court had failed to take into
consideration admissible evidence and/or
had taken into consideration the evidence
brought on record contrary to law.
Paragraphs 12 to 19 of the aforesaid
judgment are quoted as under:-

"12. This court time and again
has laid down the guidelines for the High
Court to interfere with the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the Trial
Court. The appellate court should not
ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal
in a case where two views are possible,
though the view of the appellate court may
be more, the probable one. While dealing
with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate
court has to consider the entire evidence on
record, so as to arrive at a finding as to
whether the views of the trial Court were
perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The
appellate court is entitled to consider
whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the
trial Court had failed to take into
consideration admissible evidence and/or
had taken into consideration the evidence
brought on record contrary to law.
Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof
may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by
the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v.
State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 2165;
Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of Bihar
AIR 1991 SC 315; Shailendra Pratap &
Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 2003 SC 1104;
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10
SCC 699; Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of
U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2500; State of U.P. v.
Ramveer Singh AIR 2007 SC 3075; S.
Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his
LRs. & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu
& Anr. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206; Perla
Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P.
(2009) 16 SCC 98; and Ram Singh alias
Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2010) 2 SCC 445).

13. In Sheo Swarup and Ors.
King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227, the Privy
Council observed as under:

"...the High Court should and will
always
give
proper
weight
and
consideration to such matters as (1) the
views of the trial Judge as to the credibility
of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, a
presumption certainly not weakened by the
fact that he has been acquitted at his trial,
(3) the right of the accused to the benefit of
any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an
appellate court in disturbing a finding of
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Ajeet S/o Omveer
1191
fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the witnesses...."

14. The aforesaid principle of law
has consistently been followed by this
Court. (See: Tulsiram Kanu v. The State
AIR 1954 SC 1; Balbir Singh v. State of
Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216; M.G. Agarwal v.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200;
Khedu Mohton & Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR
1970 SC 66; Sambasivan and Ors. State of
Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412; Bhagwan Singh
and Ors. v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85;
and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and
Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755).

15. In Chandrappa and Ors. v.
State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, this
Court reiterated the legal position as
under:

"(1) An appellate court has full
power
to
review,
re-appreciate
and
reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.

(2)
The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
puts
no
limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the
evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.

(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong
circumstances",
"distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are
not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal against
acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of "flourishes of language" to
emphasise the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to
curtail the power of the court to review
the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double presumption in
favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless
he is proved guilty by a competent court
of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of
his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court.

(5)
If
two
reasonable
conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate
court should not disturb the finding of
acquittal recorded by the trial court."

16. In Ghurey Lal v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450, this
Court re-iterated the said view, observing
that the appellate court in dealing with
the cases in which the trial courts have
acquitted the accused, should bear in
mind that the trial court's acquittal
bolsters the presumption that he is
innocent. The appellate court must give
due weight and consideration to the
decision of the trial court as the trial
court had the distinct advantage of
watching the demeanour of the witnesses,
and was in a better position to evaluate
the credibility of the witnesses.

17. In State of Rajasthan v.
Naresh @ Ram Naresh (2009) 9 SCC
368, the Court again examined the
earlier judgments of this Court and laid
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
down that an "order of acquittal should
not be lightly interfered with even if the
court believes that there is some evidence
pointing out the finger towards the
accused."

18. In State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Banne alias Baijnath & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC
271, this Court gave certain illustrative
circumstances in which the Court would be
justified in interfering with a judgment of
acquittal
by
the
High
Court.
The
circumstances includes:

i) The High Court's decision is
based on totally erroneous view of law by
ignoring the settled legal position;

ii) The High Court's conclusions
are contrary to evidence and documents on
record;

iii) The entire approach of the
High Court in dealing with the evidence
was patently illegal leading to grave
miscarriage of justice;

iv) The High Court's judgment is
manifestly unjust and unreasonable based
on erroneous law and facts on the record of
the case;

v) This Court must always give
proper weight and consideration to the
findings of the High Court;

vi) This Court would be extremely
reluctant in interfering with a case when
both the Sessions Court and the High Court
have recorded an order of acquittal.

A
similar
view
has
been
reiterated by this Court in Dhanapal v.
State by Public Prosecutor, Madras (2009)
10 SCC 401.

19. Thus, the law on the issue can
be summarised to the effect that in
exceptional
cases
where
there
are
compelling
circumstances,
and
the
judgment under appeal is found to be
perverse, the appellate court can interfere
with the order of acquittal. The appellate
court should bear in mind the presumption
of innocence of the accused and further
that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption of his innocence. Interference
in a routine manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there
are good reasons for interference."

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of
Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 972 has observed that while deciding
appeal against acquittal, the High Court
has to first record its conclusion on the
question whether the approach of the trial
court dealing with the evidence was
patently illegal or conclusion arrived by it
is wholly untenable which alone will justify
interference in an order of acquittal.

12. The aforesaid judgments were
taken note of with approval by Supreme
Court in the case of Anwar Ali and another
vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10
SCC 166, Nagabhushan vs. State of
Karnataka (2021) 5 SCC 222, and Babu
(supra) in Achhar Singh vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 543."

Similar view has been reiterated by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad vs.
State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC
471.

On perusal of record, we find that the
first information report was lodged by the
victim's mother on the basis of information
given
by
the
victim.
As
per
first
9 All. Anuj Sirohi @ Himanshu Sirohi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1193
information report, two witnesses have
witnessed the alleged incident but during
the course of trial they did not support the
prosecution version and turned hostile.
Even most noticeable point is that victim
herself did not support the prosecution
version and clearly stated that she was
threatened by her mother and beaten by her
brother to implicate the accused in this
false case, therefore, she had given her
statement to Investigating Officer as well
as before the Magistrate on the influence
and under fear of their family members.
She categorically stated that nothing was
happened with her and accused Ajeet did
not commit any sexual assault or rape on
her. Dr. Sandesh Aarekh PW-6 had stated
that on the examination of internal private
part of the victim, symptom of rape of
sexual assault was not found. In such view
of the matter, we, therefore, find that the
court below has taken possible view of the
matter on appreciation of entire evidence
on record, which cannot be substituted by
this Court taking a different view as per the
law discussed above.

Accordingly, it is not a case worth
granting leave to appeal. The application
for granting leave to appeal is rejected.

Re: Government Appeal

Consequently, since the Criminal
Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) has
been rejected by order of date, the present
government appeal is also dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1193
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
482 BNSS No. 3572 of 2025

Anuj Sirohi @ Himanshu Sirohi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Akhilendra Singh, Jitender Singh, Prabhat
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Zainul Abdin

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory
bail involving offences under Sections 376D, 506
IPC and 67 IT Act, despite serious allegations
and issuance of NBW.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482, -
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections - 376D,
506,
147,
452,
354
-
Information
Technology Act, 2000 - Section - 67, 67-D
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
-
Sections - 82, 83, 161, 164, 173(2), 299-
Anticipatory Bail Application - filed under Section
482 B.N.S.S. by the applicant - FIR - allegations
of gang rape, criminal intimidation and IT Act
violations - FIR initially did not attribute rape
allegations to applicant - contradictions in
prosecutrix's statements under Sections 161 &
164 Cr.P.C. - Division Bench earlier stayed arrest
- applicant did not misuse protection - Charge
sheet filed - trial commenced - applicant claims
clean antecedents - State and complainant
opposed bail citing seriousness of offence and
applicant's alleged abscondence - Court noted
contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements,
absence of direct rape allegations against the
applicant, his cooperation during investigation
under protection of a prior stay order, clean
antecedents, and commencement of trial, and
relying on precedents (Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre
and
Sushila
Aggarwal),
granted
anticipatory bail with strict conditions including
furnishing bond, cooperating in trial, not leaving
India without permission, and refraining from
influencing witnesses, subject to cancellation if
conditions are violated - application is allowed.