Allahabad High Court
NEERAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Neeraj in Criminal Case No. 109 of 2025, which involved offences under Sections 65(1) and 351(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the victim turned hostile during cross‑examination and the informant disowned the prosecution’s version. The State opposed bail, contending that the victim’s statement recorded on 19‑03‑2026 was contested. The Court noted that the victim had not supported the prosecution and that the informant also withdrew support, concluding that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions. The order emphasized that the bail decision does not prejudice the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the BNS and POCSO statutes given the victim's hostile testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of innocence and lack of prior criminal record warrant release pending trial.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- victim hostile
- POCSO
- BNS
- personal bond
- sureties
- trial pending
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26223 of 2025
Neeraj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brajesh Kumar, Laxmi Narayan
Rathour
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Saumya Srivastava
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 132 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the
informant has been served on 26.07.2025 but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.
Diksha Mahur, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Saumya Srivastava, learned
counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee as well as Sri V.K.S.
Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(2) of
BNS and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Kalpi,
District - Jalaun, 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. It
is also contended that the victim (P.W. 2) has not supported the
prosecution story during her cross-examination, as such, there is no
likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case.
5. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is languishing in
jail since 8.5.2025, having no criminal history to his credit and deserves
to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
BAIL No. 26223 of 2025
2
misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services
Committee, as well as the learned AGA, have vehemently opposed the
bail application on the ground that the statement of the victim recorded on
19.03.2026 was contested during her examination-in-chief, and therefore,
it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to bail.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
cross-examination of the victim was conducted on 02.04.2026, and she
turned hostile on that date, thereby substantially retracting her earlier
incriminating version.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, and the evidence on record, and
also considering the fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution
version and even the informant has likewise disowned the prosecution
story, the Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is accordingly allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Neeraj, 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 23, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…