Allahabad High Court
ARPIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that a prima facie case for bail exists and granted bail to the applicant.
Summary
Arpit Kumar applied for bail in Criminal Case No. 38 of 2025, which involves offences under Sections 87, 65(1), 137(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The victim, a 19‑year‑old, gave a statement under Section 183 of the CrPC indicating she had travelled with the applicant and did not raise alarm, and there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegations. The court considered the facts, the victim’s apparent consent, and the lack of medical proof, and concluded that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order does not affect the trial on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the IPC and POCSO Act given the victim's age and statement.
- Whether the victim's alleged consent and absence of medical evidence justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- POCSO Act
- consent
- victim age
- medical evidence
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21078 of 2025
Arpit Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Dubey, Kameshwar Singh,
Ram Milan Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shobhit Yadav
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 86 out of 259)
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 11.6.2025.
2. Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh and Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, learned
counsels for the applicant, Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and
perused the material placed on record. None is present on behalf of
informant.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, under Sections 87,
65(1), 137(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kamasin, District
Banda, during the pendency of trial.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the age of the victim being 19 years; the statement of the
victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party as
she has travelled to several places with the applicant and did not raise any
alarm; there being no medical corroboration of the incident and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
5. Let the applicant- Arpit Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case
crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
BAIL No. 21078 of 2025
2
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.
6. Breach of any of the above condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observation herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…