Allahabad High Court
AJADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajad (N.K. Sharma) in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 70(2), 75, 79, 351(3), 308(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5(g), 6, 7, 8 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a material inconsistency between the FIR and the victim's statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. The co‑accused, Amarjeet Maurya, had already been granted bail, and the applicant argued for parity. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the claim of inconsistency or show a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. The Court, finding prima facie inconsistency, no prior criminal record, and no substantial apprehension of misuse of liberty, ordered that the applicant be released on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions. The order also allowed the prosecution to move for bail cancellation if conditions are breached.
Issues considered
- Whether the material inconsistency between the FIR and the victim's statements warrants granting bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
- Whether parity with the co‑accused who was granted bail requires the applicant's bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- material inconsistency
- false implication
- POCSO
- criminal procedure
- parity
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25873 of 2026
Ajad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.T. Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Prakash Srivastava, G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and Sri C.P. Srivastava, counsel for the informant. Perused the
record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 124 of 2026, under Sections 70(2), 75,
79, 351(3), 308(2) B.N.S., & 5(g)/6, 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-
Paniyara, District- Maharajganj during pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The victim is a 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 first information report and
the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., does not
contain any allegation of rape against the applicant, however the victim in
her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. stated that the applicant
as well as Amarjeet Maurya and Irfan committed rape upon her. It is
contended that the material inconsistency between the first information
report, the statement of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. on one hand
and the statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on the other
discredit the prosecution case. The co-accused Amarjeet Maurya has been
granted bail by this court vide order dated 31.8.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.26186 of 2026 (Amarjeet Maurya vs. State of
BAIL No. 25873 of 2026
2
U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 2.5.2026
having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant have opposed
the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid
submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that there are material inconsistency between the
first information report, the statement of the victim under Section 180
B.N.S.S. on one hand and the statement of the victim under Section 183
B.N.S.S. on the other. The co-accused Amarjeet Maurya has been granted
bail by this court. 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.
6. Let the applicant, Ajad 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.
7. 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.)
September 15, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…