Allahabad High Court
KRISHNA @ KISHAN YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the case is fit for bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Krishna @ Kishan Yadav, who was charged under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) of the same Act and the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, highlighting contradictions in the victim's statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, and the lack of proper age verification for the alleged victim. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences involving a minor and alleged force. After reviewing the FIR, victim statements, and noting the applicant's clean criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial detention since 30‑June‑2026, the court found the matter suitable for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and several conditions aimed at preventing tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 BNSS despite contradictions in the victim's statements and the alleged nature of the offences.
- Whether the alleged offences under the BNSS and POCSO Act warrant denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 483, 64(2), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Subjects
- bail
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- POCSO
- false implication
- victim statement contradictions
- age verification
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30737 of 2026
Krishna @ Kishan Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Sharma, Srikant Tiwari, Uday
Shankar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammad Murtaza Khan,
Mohammad Mustafa
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Surendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Srikant
Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Murtaza Khan, learned
counsel for the first informant, Sri B.P. Maurya, 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. 41 of 2026 under Sections 137(2),
87, 64(2)M B.N.S., 5L/6 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Trilokpur,
District Siddharthnagar during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and there are material
contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180
and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that victim in her statement recorded
under section 180 BNSS has stated that she left her home on her own free
will and had gone to Pune where she established physical relationship with
the applicant on her consent whereas in first part of her statement recorded
under section 183 BNSS, she has stated that she left her home on her own
free will and established physical relationship with the applicant with her
consent and they also entered into court marriage, however, in later part of
the said statement, she stated that applicant established physical relationship
with her by using force. It is next submitted that the victim has pregnancy of
BAIL No. 30737 of 2026
2
four months. It is further submitted that victim is aged about 19 years as per
the FIR and 17 years 9 months as per school record of class Vth, however,
there is no certificate of High School or school first attended and no
radiological examination has been conducted for determination of her age. It
is further submitted that applicant, who has no criminal history, has been
languishing in jail since 30.6.2026 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.
4. 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.
5. As per the FIR, applicant is said to have enticed away the daughter of the
first informant aged about 19 years, however, she has been recovered. On
perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under sections 180 BNSS, it
appears that she left her home on her own free will and had gone to Pune
where she established physical relationship with the applicant on her
consent. Similar facts were narrated by her in first part of her statement
recorded under section 183 BNSS, whereas, in later part of the said
statement, she stated that applicant established physical relationship with her
by using force. She has also stated that she has performed court marriage
with the applicant and has pregnancy of four months. The victim is aged
about 19 years as per the FIR and 17 years 9 months as per school record of
class Vth, however, there is no certificate of High School or school first
attended and no radiological examination has been conducted for
determination of her age. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been
languishing in jail since 30.6.2026.
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 Krishna @ Kishan Yadav involved in the aforesaid
case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned
with the following conditions :-
BAIL No. 30737 of 2026
3
(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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 23, 2026
Madhurima
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…