Allahabad High Court
AJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the prima facie case under Section 107 B.N.S. is not made out and consequently the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajay Kumar, who was charged under Sections 74, 78, 107, 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, citing a medical report that the alleged victim survived the incident, thereby negating the essential element of death required for an offence under Section 107 B.N.S. The court found that the prosecution had not established the prima facie case and that there was no material risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Having been in custody for over three months, the applicant was deemed entitled to bail. The court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, pressurising witnesses, and mandating appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 107 of the B.N.S. are established in the present case.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant has been falsely implicated and thus eligible for bail during the pendency of trial.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- Section 107 B.N.S.
- false implication
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31157 of 2026
Ajay Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shravana Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the informant and Sri S.S. Pandey, learned AGA for the State-
opposite party, and perused the material available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 169 of 2026, under Sections 74, 78, 107,
351(3) of the B.N.S. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Rampur
Maniharan, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the statement of Dr. Sameer Sharma,
the alleged victim was admitted on 17.05.2026 and was discharged on
19.05.2026. The medical record itself demonstrates that the alleged victim
survived the incident. In the absence of any death by suicide, the basic and
foundational requirement for an offence under Section 107 B.N.S. is
conspicuously absent. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 19.05.2026
having no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have opposed the
prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions
from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence
under Section 107 BNS are not made out. Further the applicant has presently
remained confined for more than three months and after submission of
BAIL No. 31157 of 2026
2
charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no
reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the
applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am
of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Ajay Kumar involved in the aforesaid case be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
September 11, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…