Allahabad High Court

AMIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant subject to conditions.

Summary

The victim testified that she is lawfully married to the applicant, Amit Kumar, and lives with him and their child, alleging that the FIR was filed by her step‑father to harass the family. The applicant, charged under sections 87, 65(1), 115(2), 352 of the B.N.S., sections 5J(2)/6 of the POCSO Act and section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, sought bail after being in custody since 21‑06‑2025. The State opposed bail, arguing that innocence cannot be presumed at the pre‑trial stage and that the applicant might misuse liberty. The Court, after considering the victim’s statement, the nature of the evidence and the applicant’s assurances, found that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it subject to strict conditions. The bail order required personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, committing similar offences, or influencing witnesses, with cancellation possible on breach.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused at the pre‑trial stage despite serious charges under the B.N.S., POCSO Act and Child Marriage Restraint Act.
Whether the victim’s declaration of a lawful marriage and alleged malicious FIR affect the bail decision.
Whether the accused is likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 352, 65(1), 87
Child Marriage Restraint Act — s. 9
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5J(2), 6

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
criminal procedure
POCSO
child marriage
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29776 of 2025

Amit Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinab Mishra, Anupam Tripathi,
Ravi Shankar Tripathi, Vivek Kumar
Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. The victim is present before this Court, along with child and mother. The victim is
identified by Sri Ravi Shanker Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The victim has stated before this Court that she had solemnised marriage with the
applicant and out of said conjugation, one child has also born. She has further stated
that she is living peacefully and happily at her matrimonial house. She has also stated
that the informant, who is her step father had lodged the F.I.R. only to cause harm and
harassment to the applicant and his family. The statement of the victim has been
recorded separately on a plain paper and is kept on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused
the record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the since the victim has solemnised
marriage and is living at matrimonial house along with a child, therefore no offence
has been committed by the applicant as such the applicant is entitled for bail. It has
also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the
process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since
21.06.2025.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by
contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage,
therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail
BAIL No. 29776 of 2025
2

he will misuse the liberty of bail

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of
the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the
view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is
allowed.

7. Let applicant Amit Kumar involved in Case Crime No.62 of 2025 under Sections
87, 65(1), 115(2), 352 of B.N.S. and Section 5J(2)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of
Child Marriage Restrain Act, Police Station Ughaiti, District Budaun, be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the
applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

v) 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 such
person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

6. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to
cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

7. The bail application is allowed.

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
March 18, 2026
S.Ali

Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…