KESHAVRAM @ KRIPARAM PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29902 of 2026

Keshavram @ Kriparam Prajapati
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Akhil Tripathi, Santosh Pathak, Vijay
                                Shanker Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 66
           HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Akhil Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand
Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
87, 64(1), B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012, Police
Station Bhawaniganj, District Siddharthnagar, during the pendency of the
trial.

3. This matter was heard on 11.09.2026. On that date, neither the
applicant nor the learned A.G.A. could apprise this Court regarding the
date of recording the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS and
even the learned A.G.A. did not have the copy of the sexual assault report
despite receiving instructions from the concerned Investigating Officer.
Therefore, this Court vide order dated 11.09.2026 directed the
Investigating Officer of the case to appear personally before this Court
along with the sexual assault report of the victim.

4. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11.09.2026, Investigating
Officer of the case Ram Sewak Prasad, Sub-Inspector, Police Station
Bhawaniganj, District Siddharthnagar has appeared before this Court in
person and he admitted his fault that he could not send the sexual assault
report of the victim at the time of forwarding the instructions to the
learned A.G.A. The reason for such negligence has been mentioned that
                                                       BAIL No. 29902 of 2026
                               2


he is newly promoted as Sub-Inspector and the present investigation is his
third investigation and he sent instructions to the High Court for the first
time. He has also submitted written explanation through Joint Director
(Prosecution), High Court, Allahabad regarding recording the statement
of the victim under Section 183 BNSS on 30.06.2026, though normally it
should have been recorded within 24 hours from the time of receiving
information regarding the offence of committing rape against a minor. In
his explanation, Ram Sewak Prasad, Sub-Inspector has submitted that he
was on VIP duty from 27.06.2026 to 29.06.2026 and for that reason he
could not produce the victim before the concerned Magistrate. He also
submitted that on 26.06.2026 there was a holiday because of Moharram.
Though the reason for not forwarding the sexual assault report to the
learned A.G.A. as well as not recording the statement of the victim under
Section 183 BNSS has been explained, that is not the required explanation
in view of the strict provisions of the POCSO Act.

5. Coming to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the FIR was lodged regarding enticing away the daughter
of the first informant, who is more than 17 years old as per her school
certificate, while 19 years old as per her ossification test report, and the
victim girl in her statement clearly stated that she herself left her house
for the reason that she was in a relationship with the applicant and the
applicant has not committed any wrong with her and the sexual assault
report of the victim does not show any sign of sexual assault. It is further
submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore,
there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. It is further submitted
that the applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is a law-abiding
citizen and he is languishing in jail since 02.07.2026. In case, he is
granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in
the trial proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A., though vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail, could not dispute the aforesaid fact regarding the statement of the
victim and non-supply of the sexual assault report at the time of sending
instructions to him.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
                                                         BAIL No. 29902 of 2026
                                3

offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as
guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.,
2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that
the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present
application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Keshavram @ Kriparam Prajapati, involved in
the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal
bond and 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 cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
of any crime after being released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.

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

10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

11. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as
well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
                                                         BAIL No. 29902 of 2026
                                4


12. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel
with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

13. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.

14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Siddharthnagar via e-mail or on e-prison portal
and Trial Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the order of
the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re:
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and
others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.

15. Application, if any, stands disposed of.

16. Since the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, the applicant
could have been released on bail on 11.09.2026, but for want of the sexual
assault report, he could not be released on that date and finally he has
been released today after more than 18 days for no fault on his part. Since
personal liberty is a fundamental right of a person which cannot be
curtailed except in accordance with the procedure established by law,
therefore, just to compensate the applicant, the State Government will pay
Rs. 25,000/- to the applicant, which can be recovered by the S.P.,
Siddharthnagar after conducting an enquiry against the negligent police
officer for the above fault in providing complete instructions to the
learned A.G.A.

17. This Court has come across a number of cases from District
Siddharthnagar in which negligence and lapses in investigation were
found in cases under the POCSO Act. Therefore, this Court directs the
S.P., Siddharthnagar to take necessary steps to ensure that such
negligence does not occur in future. In case any police officer of District
Siddharthnagar is found negligent in conducting investigation in cases
                                                                                      BAIL No. 29902 of 2026
                                                                5


                                    under the POCSO Act in future, the S.P., Siddharthnagar shall also be
                                    held responsible for such negligence.

                                    18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of
                                    Police, Siddharthnagar through the Registrar (Compliance).



                                                                         (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    SA




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