Allahabad High Court
CHINTU @ BRAJESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Chintu @ Brajesh Kumar, who was charged under IPC sections 87, 61(2), 137(2), 64(1) and POCSO Act sections 5(j)(2) and 6 for allegedly enticing the informant’s 17‑year‑old niece, resulting in pregnancy. The applicant argued that he was innocent, pointed out a delayed FIR and lack of explanation for the delay, and relied on the victim’s statement under Section 183 CrPC that the relationship was consensual. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant’s contentions. The Court noted the victim’s consent, the applicant’s clean criminal record, his willingness to care for the victim and child, and his undertaking to cooperate with the trial. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it subject to bond, sureties and a deposit for the child.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under IPC and POCSO provisions when the alleged victim has given a statement indicating consent.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the subsequent application under Section 173(4) CrPC is a ground to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and willingness to care for the victim and child justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4), 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 61(2), 64(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(j)(2), 6
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- POCSO
- IPC
- CrPC
- delay in FIR
- victim statement
- surety
- bond
- child welfare
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15035 of 2026
Chintu @ Brajesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar Shukla, Mohit Singh,
Ravi Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.8 out of 205)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the
informant has been served on 23.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.339 of 2025, under Sections 87,
61(2), 137(2), 64(1) BNS and 5j(2)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chandausi,
District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have enticed away the niece of the informant on
23.6.2025 at about 11:00 a.m.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case.
6. The FIR is delayed by about 01 month and 10 days and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused. Even the application U/s 173(4) BNSS
was moved on 3.7.2025, which itself is delayed by about 10 days and there
is no explanation of the said delay either.
BAIL No. 15035 of 2026
2
7. The victim is a consenting party as far as her statement recorded U/s 183
BNSS is concerned, whereby she has stated that she was 17 years old and
had studied upto class-5th only. She had gone with the applicant out of her
own sweet-will. She has also stated that her parents had agreed to marry her
off with the applicant, but subsequently refused to do so and started beating
her up, as such, she alone left her house to Haridwar and then went to
Mumbai.
8. The victim in the said statement has categorically stated that she
established corporeal relationship with the applicant out of her own sweet-
will and she was pregnant as she loved him. She has also stated that her
father instituted the FIR, thereupon the applicant and his parents have been
sent to jail and she wants to save them.
9. The victim has given birth to a baby in the women welfare center and she
had not gone with her parents, which indicates her consent and willingness
to stay with the applicant.
10. The applicant and his parents are very much ready to take care of the
victim and the child born. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail
since 11.10.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse
the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
11. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
CONCLUSION:
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of victim recorded U/s 183 BNSS, which
indicates her consent, coupled by the fact that applicant is ready to take care
of the victim and her child, 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.
13. Let the applicant- Chintu @ Brajesh Kumar, be released on bail on
BAIL No. 15035 of 2026
3
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he
shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
before the trial court as required. The applicant shall deposit (fixed deposit)
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of new born child of the victim, through
legal guardian (mother/victim) within a period of six months from the date
of his release from jail.
14. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 5, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…