Allahabad High Court
AJAY MADDHESHIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the case is fit for bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Ajay Maddheshiya, filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2), 143(4) of the same Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act. He claimed innocence, alleging false implication and pointed to the fact that co‑accused Kunnu Yadav had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicant had sold the victim to the co‑accused for Rs 50,000. The court examined the record, noted the heavy pendency of cases, and, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the circumstances sufficient to justify bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and several conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future findings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged offences under the BNS Act and the POCSO Act.
- Whether the allegation that the applicant sold the victim to a co‑accused constitutes a ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 143(4), 183, 483, 61(2), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 10, 9
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- false implication
- co‑accused
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16687 of 2026
Ajay Maddheshiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Digambar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Digambar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, and
Shri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the
record. Learned AGA submits that the notice has been served on the first
informant.
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.126 of 2025, under
Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2), 143(4) BNS and Section 9/10 of POCSO Act,
registered at Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria, during pendency
of the trial.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to
ulterior motive. It is further submitted that co-accused Kunnu Yadav has
already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 06.05.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.15343 of 2026. It is further submitted that as per first information
report, the main allegation against the co-accused Kunnu Yadav,
however, the victim has supported the allegations of the first information
report and her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has
categorically stated that she is aged about 18 years and she had married
with the co-accused Kunnu Yadav on her own free will and no physical
relationship was established by the co-accused Kunnu Yadav with her. It
is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since
BAIL No. 16687 of 2026
2
24.03.2026, 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. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant and it has been submitted by him that during investigation it has
surfaced that the applicant has sold the victim to the co-accused Kunnu
Yadav for a consideration money of Rs.50,000/-.
5. Co-accused Kunnu Yadav has already been granted bail by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15343 of 2026. As per first
information report, the main allegation is against the co-accused Kunnu
Yadav, however, the victim has not supported the allegations of the first
information report and in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS
has categorically stated that she is aged about 18 years and she had
married with the co-accused Kunnu Yadav on her own free will and no
physical relationship was established by the co-accused Kunnu Yadav
with her. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail
since 24.03.2026.
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- Ajay Maddheshiya involved in the aforesaid case
crime shall 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 :-
(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.
BAIL No. 16687 of 2026
3
(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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
May 18, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…