Allahabad High Court
VAKEEL ALIAS VIKRAM NISHADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vakeel alias Vikram Nishad in a criminal case involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 115(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The victim, born on 01‑01‑2008, was said to have accompanied the accused to Mumbai and did not raise an alarm, leading the court to view the recorded statement as indicating consent. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, the court treated the victim as if she were of majority age for the purpose of bail. No medical evidence corroborated the alleged assault. Finding that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the BNS and POCSO Acts despite the victim being a minor.
- Whether the victim's alleged consent and lack of medical evidence justify bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent on the age of wards can be applied to treat the victim as an adult for bail considerations.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- minor
- POCSO
- BNS
- medical evidence
- Supreme Court precedent
- age of majority
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26119 of 2025
Vakeel Alias Vikram Nishad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Disha Srivastava, Subir Lal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Singh, Mohd.
Shamim
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 127 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 27.07.2025 but none is present on
behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Ms. Disha Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 356 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64(1), 115(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act,
Police Station - Gulriha, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of
trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates
her consent as she had accompanied the applicant all the way to Mumbai
and has not raised any alarm whatsoever. As per the High School
certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2008, and thus, she is
marginally below the age of majority. However, in light of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC
673, wherein it has been observed that, in Indian society, the age of wards
is often recorded as lower than their actual age, she may be treated as
being of majority age for the purposes of the present consideration.
BAIL No. 26119 of 2025
2
Furthermore, there is no medical evidence on record to corroborate the
alleged incident.
5. 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.
6. Let the applicant- Vakeel Alias Vikram Nishad, 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.
7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…