Allahabad High Court: In a second bail application filed by the accused seeking bail for offence under Section 377 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Piyush Agrawal,J. without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, refused to grant bail.
The accused submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It was also submitted that the informant lodged this first information report after delay of two days against the accused to defeat the present Gram Pradhan and indirectly targeted to Gram Pradhan, because the accused belongs to family of present Gram Pradhan.
It was also submitted that at the time of hearing the first bail application, no witness had been examined, but presently four witnesses have been examined, who have not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile.
It was further submitted that the video maker’s name and the mobile number through which the said video was viral were not disclosed in the first information report and in any statement of the witnesses.
The State submitted that the accused has committed unnatural acts with the cows in the cowshed, which is confirmed by the video footage.
The Court said that after considering the facts that the accused has committed unnatural acts with the cows in the cowshed, which is confirmed from the video footage as well as from the medical report of the Chief Veterinary Officer and more particularly, no new ground has been taken by the accused in the instant bail application.
Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the Court refused to grant bail.
[Harikishan v State of U.P, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18035 of 2024, decided on 12-08-2024]
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
