MUNNBARversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14252 of 2026

Munnbar
                                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                         Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
                                                                    .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :   Ajay Kumar Vashistha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                 :   Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, G.A.

Court No. - 69
                    HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh
Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ashish Kumar Tripathi,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2026 under Sections 333, 115(2), 351(3) BNS and
section 3/4(2) POCSO Act registered at Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj
during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 08.3.2026. It is
further submitted that FIR has been lodged after delay of 15 days as per which,
applicant is said to have committed penetrating sexual assault on the victim boy i.e.
son of the first informant, however, medico-legal report of the victim does not support
the above allegations. It is also submitted that the victim in his statement recorded
under section 183 BNSS has not stated anything regarding commission of the said
act. It is further submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in
the memo of application and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if
granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in
the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A.
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

5. FIR has been lodged after delay of 15 days as per which, applicant is said to have
committed penetrating sexual assault on the victim boy i.e. son of the first informant,
however, medico-legal report of the victim does not support the above allegations.
The victim has not stated anything regarding commission of the said act even in his
statement recorded under section 183 BNSS. Criminal history of the applicant has
                                                                                                     BAIL No. 14252 of 2026
                                                                         2

                                    been explained in the memo of application and he is in jail since 08.3.2026.

                                    6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record
                                    and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for
                                    bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.

                                    7. Let the applicant Munnbar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail
                                    on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like
                                    amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

                                    (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or
                                    promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
                                    disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

                                    (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

                                    (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates
                                    fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
                                    under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

                                    (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
                                    adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial
                                    court.

                                    (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either
                                    personally or through his counsel.

                                    8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
                                    cancellation of bail.

                                    9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
                                    determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression
                                    on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
                                    independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in
                                    this order.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Madhurima
                                                                                            (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad