Allahabad High Court
PRAMOD KUMAR RAJPOOTversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Pramod Kumar Rajpoot, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 137(2), 65(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, asserting that the alleged victim was a consenting adult who had traveled with him and had not raised any alarm, as reflected in her statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. After evaluating the victim’s statement indicating consent and noting the applicant’s lack of criminal history, the court found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order emphasized that the bail does not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case where the alleged victim claims to be a consenting adult.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicating consent creates a prima facie case for bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and willingness to cooperate affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 183
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 137(2), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3/4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consent
- Indian Evidence Act
- Section 183
- criminal procedure
- sureties
- trial pending
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22420 of 2025
Pramod Kumar Rajpoot
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalji Yadav, Shailesh Kumar Mishra,
Vinay Kumar Mishra, Yashpal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.109 out of 277)
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 26.6.2025.
2. Heard Ms. Poonam Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yashpal
Yadav, 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.59 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
65(1) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Rasoolabad, District
Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that 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 traveled with the applicant to
several places including Mumbai but she had not raised any alarm
whatsoever during the said sojourn.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim, by
her looks, seems to be major and she has mentioned herself to be 18 years
old in her statement recorded U/s 183 BNSS. The applicant has no criminal
history and is in jail since 25.3.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the
trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 22420 of 2025
2
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
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 under Section 183
B.N.S.S., which indicates her consent, 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. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Pramod Kumar Rajpoot, be released on bail on
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.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 20, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…