Allahabad High Court
VINAY KUMAR ALIAS ASHISHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court denied bail to the accused.
Summary
The applicant, Vinay Kumar alias Ashish, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 461 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 65(2) and 351(3) of the BNS Act and Sections 5m/6 of the POCSO Act, where a 10‑year‑old girl was the victim. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging that a property dispute motivated false implication and that the injuries to the child were caused by her parents, not the accused. The prosecution presented a medical report documenting multiple injuries on the child’s body. After hearing counsel for both sides, the court found the injuries indicative of a serious offence and deemed the case unsuitable for bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court directing that the trial proceed expeditiously, citing recent Supreme Court judgments.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 65(2), 351(3) of the BNS Act and Sections 5m/6 of the POCSO Act in view of the nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether the presence of documented injuries on the child victim justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the alleged property dispute motive affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- child sexual abuse
- injury
- property dispute
- criminal procedure
- expeditious trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39097 of 2025
Vinay Kumar Alias Ashish
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Desh Ratan Chaudhary, Himanshu
Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 167 out of 277)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Siddhartha Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 461 of 2025, under Sections 65(2), 351(3) of
BNS and Sections 5m/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Dibai, District -
Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he
has no connection with the offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further
contended that there exists a property dispute between the parties, which
forms the real motive for implicating him. The victim is a 10 year old girl,
and although she has sustained injuries, the same were caused as a result
of being beaten by her own parents and not in the manner alleged against
the applicant.
5. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing
in jail since 5.7.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
shall cooperate with trial.
BAIL No. 39097 of 2025
2
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties have vehemently
opposed the bail application on the ground that as per medical report,
there are injuries on the body of the victim and the same are as under:-
(i) Injury No. 1-- Redness Linear Mark about 4 X 6 cm present on upper
aspect of left upper arm;
(ii) Injury No. 2-- Redness and Blush Mark about 3 X 3 cm present on
upper aspect of left upper thigh;
(iii) Injury No. 3-- Redness Oval Shape Abrasion about 2.5 X 2.5 cm
present on medial aspect of back/spine area; and
(iv) Injury No. 4 -- Redness present about 2 X 2 cm on upper aspect of
forearm.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that the injuries sustained on the body of the victim, I do not find
it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the
recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs.
State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union
of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
10. 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.)
April 20, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…