Allahabad High Court
HANI VERMA @ YOGENDRAversusSTATE 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 High Court considered a bail application filed by Hani Verma (applicant) in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was filed two days after the alleged incident, that there was no medical evidence, and that the victim, a 19‑year‑old consenting adult, had voluntarily married the applicant. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of medical corroboration, and the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicating consent, and concluded that the applicant had established a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the B.N.S.S. and POCSO statutes in view of the FIR delay, lack of medical evidence, and alleged consent of the victim.
- Whether the victim’s consent negates the applicability of the offences under the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 137(2), 183, 64(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consent
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15123 of 2026
Hani Verma @ Yogendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Dutt Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 27 out of 205)
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 26.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Krishna
Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.K.
Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 392 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bharthana,
District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of
the said delay caused.
5. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has categorically stated
that her parents were against the applicant marrying the victim as he
belonged to different caste. The victim, as such, had left her house as her
marriage was to be solemnized with someone else and she had married the
applicant and stayed with him at Faridabad, Haryana.
6. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is major as
BAIL No. 15123 of 2026
2
her age is 19 years as per ossification test report.
7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 13.3.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
8. Learned State Law Officer has opposed the bail application but could not
dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
CONCLUSION:
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR; there being 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 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.
10. Let the applicant- Hani Verma @ Yogendra, 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.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
12. 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 5, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…