Allahabad High Court
MADAN PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, subject to the conditions imposed.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Madan Pandey, who was arrested in a case registered under Sections 87, 137(2), 65(1) of the same Act and Sections 5j(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the alleged victim, a minor of 13 years and 4 months, had voluntarily entered into a matrimonial alliance with him, and that she refused medical examination, while the State argued that the victim’s minority warranted denial of bail. The court examined the facts, noting the absence of a criminal record, the victim’s refusal of forensic tests, and the prolonged pre‑trial detention, without expressing a view on the merits. It concluded that the circumstances satisfied the criteria for bail under Section 483. Consequently, the court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposed standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for offences under that Act and the POCSO Act involving a minor.
- Whether the alleged consent of a minor child affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the absence of a medical‑legal examination and ossification test impacts the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and the pendency of trial justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 351, 483, 65(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5j(2), 6
Subjects
- bail
- minor
- POCSO
- consent
- pre‑trial detention
- evidence tampering
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30691 of 2026
Madan Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahesh Kumar Sahani, Narendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish
Kumar Tripathi, 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. 49 of 2026 under Sections 87, 137(2), 65(1) BNS, 5j(2)/6
POCSO Act registered at Police Station Kolhui, District Maharajganj during pendency
of the trial.
3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. states that notice has been served upon the first
informant.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and the victim in her statements recorded under
sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that she left her home and entered into
matrimonial alliance with the applicant on her own free will and physical relationship
was established between them with mutual consent. It is further submitted that age of
the victim has been found to be 13 years and 4 months as per certificate of class
VIIIth, however, there is no certificate of High School or school first attended. It is
further submitted that the victim has refused to undergo medico-legal examination and
ossification test. It is further submitted that applicant, who has no criminal history, has
been languishing in jail since 08.7.2026 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.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant and submits that victim is a minor girl aged about 13 years and 4 months as
per certificate of class VIIIth.
6. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have enticed away the sister of the first
informant, however, she has been recovered. The victim has stated in her statements
BAIL No. 30691 of 2026
2
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS that she left her home and entered into
matrimonial alliance with the applicant on her own free will and physical relationship
was established between them with mutual consent. The victim is aged about 13 years
and 4 months as per certificate of class VIIIth, however, there is no certificate of High
School or school first attended. The victim has refused to undergo medico-legal
examination and ossification test. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been
languishing in jail since 08.7.2026.
7. 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.
8. Let the applicant Madan Pandey 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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.
September 23, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…