Allahabad High Court
RAMKUMAR @ BHOLAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court denied bail, finding no justification to release the applicant.
Summary
Ramkumar @ Bhola filed a second bail application in a criminal case (Crime No. 34 of 2025) involving charges under sections 65(1), 127(2), 351(3) of the BNS Act, sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act, and section 67A of the Income Tax Act. The first bail application had been rejected. The applicant’s counsel could not raise any new ground for bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, found no basis to grant bail and, without commenting on the merits, rejected the application. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial, and the order was communicated to the trial court. The observations were limited to the bail application and do not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in the second application when no new ground is raised despite serious charges under BNS, POCSO and Income Tax Acts
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 127(2), 351(3), 65(1)
- Income Tax Act — s. 67A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- second bail application
- no new ground
- criminal procedure
- POCSO Act
- Income Tax Act
- expedited trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32280 of 2026
Ramkumar @ Bhola
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nand Kishor Mishra, Pawan Kumar
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 01 out of 98)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. This is the second bail application of the
applicant. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order
dated 23.04.2026 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 14944 of 2025.
2. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2025, U/S 65(1), 127(2),
351(3) of BNS, Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 67A of I.T.
Act, Police Station - Charkhari, District - Mahoba, during the pendency of
trial.
4. Since no new ground could be brought up by learned counsel for the
applicant, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the
applicant on bail.
5. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
6. However, the Trial Court is directed to decide the aforesaid case
expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
7. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
BAIL No. 32280 of 2026
2
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.
8. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to
the Trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 14, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…