Allahabad High Court
RINKU @ ABHAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the application lacked merit and new grounds.
Summary
The applicant, Rinku @ Abhay Kumar, was charged under Sections 137(2) of the CrPC, 65(1) of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act in Crime No. 275 of 2025. He filed a second bail application after the first was rejected. The counsel for the applicant failed to present any new ground for bail. The court found the application devoid of merit and rejected it, directing that the trial proceed expeditiously. The observations were limited to the bail application and do not affect the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the absence of any new ground after a prior bail denial
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 65(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3/4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- POCSO Act
- narcotic law
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31699 of 2026
Rinku @ Abhay Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ratnendu Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.28 out of 318)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rajendra
Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.
3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.43387 of 2025.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.275
of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police
Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant could not produce any new ground for pressing
the instant bail application, as such, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the
applicant. The instant bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.
6. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be
decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law, if there is no legal
impediment.
7. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by
the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall
have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…