Allahabad High Court
VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS BULLETversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that prima facie the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vijay Kumar Alias Bullet in a criminal case (Crime No. 276 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 65(1), 87, 137(2) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was delayed, and asserted that the alleged victim, who appeared to be a major, had consented to the act. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the unreliability of radiological age determination and the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicating consent, the Court found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case where the alleged victim’s consent is claimed.
- Whether the two‑day delay in filing the FIR is a ground to deny bail.
- Whether the age of the alleged victim, determined by ossification test, can be relied upon for bail considerations.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charges under the B.N.S.S. and POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consent
- age determination
- FIR delay
- criminal procedure
- Section 183 B.N.S.S.
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31417 of 2025
Vijay Kumar Alias Bullet
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shweta Nishad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Monu Upadhyay
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.155 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Ms. Shweta Nishad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Monu
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan
Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.276 of 2025, under Sections 65(1),
87, 137(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna,
District Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The victim seems to be a consenting party as she was about to
go with the applicant and was apprehended by the police at the railway
station. The victim, by her looks, seems to be major, although she is stated to
be 16 years old as per the ossification test report. The applicant has no
criminal history and is in jail since 11.6.2025. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
BAIL No. 31417 of 2025
2
6. The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538
and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC
192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth
rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183
B.N.S.S., which indicates her consent, and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Vijay Kumar Alias Bullet, be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he
shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
before the trial court as required.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…