Allahabad High Court

VIPIN PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vipin Pandey in a criminal case (Crime No. 237 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(1) of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, citing an ossification test that placed the victim’s age at 18‑19 years and her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. indicating consent and no resistance. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court found that the victim was a consenting adult, the applicant had no prior criminal record, and there was no risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act given the alleged consent of the victim and the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents.
Whether the victim’s age and statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. negate the seriousness of the charges for bail purposes.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay if bail is granted.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 64(1), 87
B.N.S.S. — s. 180, 183
POCSO Act — s. 3, 4(1)

Subjects

bail
false implication
consent
POCSO
criminal procedure
ossification test
victim age
no criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4070 of 2026

Vipin Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dilip Kumar Pandey, Saurabh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. As per the office report dated 17.03.2026, notice of the present
application has been served upon the informant personally. However, no one
appears on behalf of the informant nor any counter affidavit has been filed
on his behalf.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87,
64(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(1) POCSO Act, Police Station Adalhat, District
Mirzapur during the pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 15.07.2025. The first information report was lodged on
21.07.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the ossification
test report dated 12.09.2025, the victim was found aged 18-19 years. Placing
reliance on the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S.
it is contended that the victim had gone with the applicant to Varanasi and
thereafter to Tamilnadu. The victim was present at public places. She did not
raise any alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she
was a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 12.09.2025 having no
criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
BAIL No. 4070 of 2026
2

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the ossification test report
dated 12.09.2025, the victim was found aged 18-19 years. The victim in her
statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she had gone
with the applicant to Varanasi and thereafter to Tamilnadu. The victim was
present at public places. She did not raise any alarm nor did she resist the
applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant
has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined
for more than six months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no
hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness,
therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant- Vipin Pandey, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

March 18, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…