Allahabad High Court
SHIVA RAIKWARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of Shiva Raikwar, who was charged under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that he had been granted bail earlier but missed court dates due to a communication gap and his need to work in Madhya Pradesh, resulting in non‑bailable warrants and three years of absconding. The State opposed bail, contending that his failure to appear had caused trial delays. The court, after reviewing the record and noting the applicant’s clean criminal history and willingness to cooperate, held that the case was fit for bail despite the prior absconding. Accordingly, the bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties and a set of strict conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying offences.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to an accused who previously absconded and had non‑bailable warrants issued against him.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record and claim of livelihood necessity outweigh the State’s concern of trial delay.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- Section 483 B.N.S.S.
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- non‑bailable warrant
- absconding
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31121 of 2026
Shiva Raikwar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mrituanjay Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Mrituanjay Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Singh,
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. 83 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO
Act registered at Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur 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 was granted
bail in the present case, however, due to some communication gap, he was not aware
about the dates of the proceedings of the case, therefore, he could not appear before he
learned trial court and non bailable warrants were issued against him as he had gone to
Madhya Pradesh to earn his livelihood. It is further submitted that applicant, who has
no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since 13.4.2026 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 applicant absconded and could not appear before the trial
court for about three years and the proceedings of the case have been delayed on
account of his conduct.
6. Applicant was granted bail in the present case, however, due to non appearance
before the trial court, non bailable warrants were issued against him and he remained
absconded for about three years, however, applicant is ready and willing to co-operate
in the trial. Applicant, who has no criminal history, has been languishing in jail since
BAIL No. 31121 of 2026
2
13.4.2026.
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 Shiva Raikwar 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 18, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…