Allahabad High Court
ROHIT SONI ALIAS PUNNUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is rejected as devoid of merit because no new ground was raised for the second application.
Summary
The applicant, Rohit Soni, filed a second bail application in a case under IPC sections 333, 64(1) and 351(2) alleging sexual assault. He argued that the victim’s cross‑examination revealed contradictions, there was no medical evidence, and the doctor’s testimony was inconclusive, constituting a new ground for bail. The State opposed, contending that the victim, who is mentally unstable, had given a consistent statement in chief and that the intervening period between examinations was material. The Court held that the second application did not raise any fresh ground and was therefore without merit. Consequently, the bail plea was rejected, with a direction that the trial proceed expeditiously, and the observations were limited to the bail issue alone.
Issues considered
- Whether the second bail application is maintainable in the absence of a new ground.
- Whether contradictions in the victim’s testimony and lack of medical corroboration justify granting bail.
- Whether the mental instability of the victim affects the bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(2), 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- second bail application
- victim testimony
- contradictory statements
- mental instability
- IPC sections 333, 64(1), 351(2)
- trial expeditious
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45739 of 2025
Rohit Soni Alias Punnu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Someshwar Pandey, Vinod
Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.66 out of 243)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Wahid Jamal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohd. Kamar Shah
Alam, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the informant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the
State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.38469 of 2024.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.147 of 2024, under Sections 333, 64(1), 351(2) BNS, Police Station
Khiri, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that, as a new ground, the
victim has not supported the prosecution story during her cross-examination.
There are several contradictions in the statement of the victim, whereby she
has stated that she was not subjected to sexual assault by the applicant. There
was no medical corroboration of the incident. Even the statement of the
doctor concerned, who has been examined as PW-5, does not corroborate the
prosecution story, as he has stated that he was not sure whether the victim
had been subjected to sexual assault. The applicant is in jail since
13.08.2024 and is ready to cooperate with the trial. In case the applicant is
BAIL No. 45739 of 2025
2
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law
Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the
examination-in-chief of the victim was recorded on 22.08.2025 and the
cross-examination was conducted on 09.09.2025. What transpired during the
intervening period of more than 18 days is best known to the victim and her
family members only. The victim was a mentally unstable lady.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application,
I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail
application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law,
if there is no legal impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…