Allahabad High Court
BITANU @ NEERAJ KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding the case fit for release on personal bond and sureties.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar, who was arrested in connection with a case registered as Crime No. 69 of 2025 under Sections 65(1), 352, 351(3) of the BNS Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged nine days after the alleged incident, and that there was no medical evidence to substantiate the victim's claim. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS Act was argued to indicate consent, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s claim of innocence or his clean criminal record. Weighing the seriousness of the offences, the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of corroborative medical evidence, and the applicant’s lack of prior convictions, the Court found the case fit for bail. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the offences under the BNS and POCSO Acts
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of medical evidence affect the bail decision
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNS indicating consent negates the necessity for pre‑trial detention
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- consent
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- no prior criminal record
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25561 of 2025
Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kaushlendra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 114 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the
informant has been served on 3.8.2025 but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Sri Kaushlendra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2025, under Sections
65(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police
Station - Meja, District - Prayagraj, 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.
He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR
is delayed by about nine days and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused.
5. Learned counsel has also stated that the statement of the victim
recorded u/s 183 BNSS cannot be believed as there is no sign of any
struggle whatsoever. Even she has escalated the allegation to that of rape.
There is no medical corroboration of the incident.
6. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in
jail since 18.06.2025, having no criminal history, deserves to be released
BAIL No. 25561 of 2025
2
on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application
but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the
applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of
punishment and also considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the
statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS which indicates towards
her consent coupled by the fact that there being no medical corroboration
of the incident, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on
bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar, 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.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…