Allahabad High Court
BUDDHVILASversusSTATE 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 granted bail subject to conditions.
Summary
Buddhvilas was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 94 of 2025) under Sections 137(2) and 64 of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the 19‑year‑old victim was a consenting party, and that her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. corroborated this. He also highlighted his clean record and willingness to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the bail but did not present substantive counter‑arguments. The Court, after considering the victim’s statement and the applicant’s circumstances, concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions. The order emphasized that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Sections 137(2), 64 B.N.S.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act when the alleged victim is a consenting adult.
- Whether the victim's statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. establishes consent sufficient to justify bail.
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and cooperation with the trial warrant bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- POCSO Act
- B.N.S.S.
- victim statement
- sureties
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15225 of 2026
Buddhvilas
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Karan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ankit Namdev, G.A., Vinod Shankar
Tripathi
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 47 out of 269)
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 30.5.2026.
2. Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit
Namdev, learned counsel for the informant 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. 94 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 64 BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bisanda, District Banda,
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 victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her
statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had travelled
with the applicant by different modes of transportation and did not raise any
alarm, whatsoever. The victim is major, being 19 years old as per
ossification test report.
5. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 13.12.2025 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:
BAIL No. 15225 of 2026
2
6. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by
counsel for the applicant has not been opposed.
CONCLUSION:
7. 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 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.
8. Let the applicant- Buddhvilas 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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 14, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…