PUNEETversusSTATE OF U.P THROUGH ITS SECRETARY HOME U.P AT LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29443 of 2025

Puneet
                                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                         Versus

State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Home U.P At Lucknow
And Others
                                                                    .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)             :   Ajai Kumar, Pankaj Kumar                 Tiwari,
                                         Pushpendra Singh, Rukmani Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :   G.A., Syed Imran Ibrahim

Court No. - 69
                    HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Imran
Ibrahim, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Radhey Shyam, learned AGA for
the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. 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. 317 of 2025 under Sections 140(2), 351(2) BNS, 3/4(2)
POCSO Act and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat,
District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 10.5.2025. It is
further submitted that the victim has not supported the allegations before the learned
trial court. It is also submitted that applicant has criminal history of one case which
has been 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.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the fist informant and learned A.G.A.
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted by them that
the victim has supported the allegations made in the FIR in his statement recorded
under section 183 BNSS.

5. FIR has been lodged by one Sunidhi, worker of NGO alleging that applicant had
committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim who is 12 years old. The victim has
supported the allegations made in the FIR in his statement recorded under section 183
BNSS, however, he has not supported the same in his testimony before the trial court
and his medico-legal report also does not corroborate the aforesaid allegations. A
pplicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in the memo of
                                                                                                     BAIL No. 29443 of 2025
                                                                         2

                                    application and he is in jail since 10.5.2025.

                                    6. 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.

                                    7. Let the applicant Puneet 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 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.

                                    8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
                                    cancellation of bail.

                                    9. 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.

                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Madhurima
                                                                                            (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad