Allahabad High Court
KAMLA VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Kamla Verma, who was charged with offences including Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 351(3) of the same Act and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, asserting that the alleged victim, a minor of 16 years, had consented to a consensual relationship and that no video evidence or medical proof of rape existed. The State argued that under the POCSO Act, a minor's consent is immaterial and that the applicant should remain in custody. After reviewing the record, the court found that the circumstances warranted bail, emphasizing the lack of substantive evidence and the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond and several conditions, while expressly stating that the order does not comment on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 BNS for offences involving alleged sexual assault of a minor where consent is claimed.
- Whether the victim's alleged consent is material under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention justifies bail.
- Whether the absence of video or photographic evidence affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 351(3), 483, 64(2)(m), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor
- consent
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26234 of 2026
Kamla Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kshitij Ram Dubey, Pramod Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Kumar, G.A., Naveen
Pandey, Praveen Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised.
2. Second supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is
taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Kshitij Ram Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Uma
Shankar Mishra, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the
record.
4. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2026 under Sections 137(2),
87, 64(2)(m), 351(3) BNS and 5L/6 POCSO Act registered at Police Station
Maniar, District Ballia during pendency of the trial.
5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and on perusal of the statement of
the victim recorded under section 180 BNSS, it appears that she is a
consenting party. It is further submitted that victim is aged about 16 years, 7
months and 12 days as per certificate of High School and her medico legal
report does not support the allegation of commission of rape on her.
However, the victim in her statement under section 183 BNSS has stated that
she was in love with the applicant for the last two years and physical
BAIL No. 26234 of 2026
2
relationship was established between them by mutual consent and they also
entered into matrimonial alliance. It is further submitted that the applicant is
said to have recorded a video of the physical relationship but no such video
or photograph as alleged has been recovered during investigation. It is
further submitted that chargesheet in the case has already been filed and the
applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.6.2026. It is further submitted
that criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in the memo of
application and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in
the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first
informant opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit
that a case under POCSO Act has been registered against the applicant in
which arrest of the applicant was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court. It
is further submitted that applicant is aged about 35 years and he has taken
contrary grounds in the memo application. Learned AGA submits that the
victim is aged about 16 years and 7 months and her consent is immaterial.
7. As per the FIR, applicant and other accused persons are said to have
enticed away the daughter of the first informant, however the victim is has
been recovered. The victim has stated that she was in love with the applicant
and has also entered into matrimonial alliance with him on her own free will.
However, in her statement under section 183 BNSS, she has stated that she
was in love with the applicant and entered into matrimonial alliance with
him, however, the applicant recorded a video of the private moments. No
such video as alleged has been recovered during investigation and medical
legal report of the victim does not support the allegation of commission of
rape on her. Chargesheet in the case has already been filed and the applicant
has been languishing in jail since 15.6.2026.
8. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant Kamla Verma involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned
BAIL No. 26234 of 2026
3
with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat,
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 8, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…