Allahabad High Court
VIVEK KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
Vivek Kumar applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 248 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, asserting that the alleged victim was a consenting adult who had married him, and highlighted the absence of medical evidence. The victim's age was contested; although a Class IX certificate suggested she was 16, the court noted the certificate was not reliable. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's submissions. Considering the lack of corroborative evidence and the victim's statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the court found the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim claims consent and there is no medical evidence.
- Whether the alleged victim is a minor despite documentary discrepancies.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor
- consent
- medical evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14365 of 2026
Vivek Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghvendra Yadav, Shanti Kumar
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.46 out of 265)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to
the informant has been served on 23.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Raghvendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as
Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Tahabarpur,
District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded
under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that applicant did not
entice her away and that she has married the applicant and stayed with him
as his wife. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.
5. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim, by her physical
appearance, seems to be major although her date of birth as per Class IX
certificate is 11.9.2009 as such, her age is 16 years, 2 months and 20 days
but the said certificate cannot be relied upon as the victim is stated to have
been admitted during the instant session only i.e. 2025-26. There is no valid
document to suggest that victim was minor.
BAIL No. 14365 of 2026
2
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
11.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned State Law Officer has opposed the bail application but could not
dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident
and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems
to be consenting party and has married him and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant
has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Vivek Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case
crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…