Allahabad High Court
SUMITversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sumit in a criminal case under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, citing inconsistencies between the victim’s statements under sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S., lack of any injury on medical examination, and the victim’s refusal for internal examination. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these points. The court found prima facie that the inconsistencies and absence of injury reduced the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and noted the applicant’s clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and lack of medical injury justify granting bail.
- Whether the prosecution has demonstrated a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation sufficient to deny bail under the relevant statutory provisions.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 180, 183, 351(3), 65(1), 78(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3/4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- victim statement inconsistency
- medical report
- pre‑trial detention
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2561 of 2026
Sumit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gyanesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. As per office report dated 24.2.2026, notice of the present bail
application has been personally served upon the opposite party no.4/
informant. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.4
nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 365 of 2025, under Sections 65(1),
78(1), 351(3) B.N.S., and 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station- Hapur
Dehat, District- Hapur during pendency of the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The victim is major. The age of the victim
was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents
to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related
entry of the victim in the school records. The victim in her statement under
Section 180 B.N.S.S. has not levelled any allegation against the applicant.
However, the victim in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has
narrated an entirely different version. It is contended that the inconsistencies
in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredit
the prosecution case at this stage. The victim has also refused to get herself
internally examined. As per the medical report dated 30.10.2025 no mark of
injury was found on external examination. The applicant is in jail since
BAIL No. 2561 of 2026
2
30.10.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will
not misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the
victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. As per the medical report dated
30.10.2025 no mark of injury was found on external examination. The
applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently
remained confined for more than four months and there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been
brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would
either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant, Sumit involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to
the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
March 18, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…