Allahabad High Court
VIRENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Virendra, accused under Sections 64(2)m, 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly establishing a physical relationship with a 17‑year‑old girl under false promise of marriage, resulting in pregnancy and a child. The applicant claimed the relationship was consensual, he had no prior criminal record, and he was prepared to marry the victim, seeking bail after seven months of judicial custody. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim's minority and the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court, noting the overcrowded jails, pendency of cases, and Supreme Court precedents on bail, decided not to opine on the merits but granted bail with strict conditions. The order directed the applicant’s release on personal bond and sureties, and stipulated verification of identity and compliance with bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under Sections 64(2)m, 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act where the alleged victim is a minor.
- Whether the alleged false promise of marriage and resultant pregnancy preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the circumstances of jail overcrowding and case pendency justify bail despite the nature of the offence.
- How the Supreme Court judgments in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. influence the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor
- false promise of marriage
- overcrowded jails
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40740 of 2025
Virendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Pandey, Alauddin,
Fakhruddin, Jitendra Singh, Mamta
Mishra, Surendra Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shweta Srivastava
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Alauddin, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shweta
Srivastava, learned counsel for the High Court legal Services Committee
and Shri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that the notice has
been served on the first informant.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)m,
351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Shivnagar Didai, District Siddharth Nagar, during the pendency of the
trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case though there is no
incriminating material against him. It is further submitted that on perusal of
the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it
appears that she was in consensual relationship with the applicant for the last
4 years and the age of the victim has been found to be 17 years and 5 months
as per high school certificate on the date of registration of the first
information report and she is on the verge of attaining majority. It is further
submitted that the applicant has tried his best to enter into matrimonial
alliance with the victim, however, the victim is not agreeable to this
proposal, therefore, the marriage could not be solemnized and due to some
BAIL No. 40740 of 2025
2
financial distress, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- could not be deposited in a
fixed term in the name of the child. It is further submitted that the applicant
is still ready and willing to marry the victim, if she agrees to the said
proposal. It is further submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial
custody for about 7 months and the applicant is having no criminal
history, in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services
Committee and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and it has been submitted by them that the victim is a minor girl aged
about 17 years and 5 months as per high school certificate and the
applicant has established physical relationship with her on the false
promise of marriage, as a result of which, she became pregnant and she
has given birth to a child.
5. As per first information report, the applicant is said to have established
physical relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and
the age of the victim has been found to be 17 years and 5 months as per
certificate of high school, as a result of which, she became pregnant and
she has given birth to a child. It is further submitted that on perusal of the
statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it
appears that she was in consensual relationship with the applicant for the last
4 years and the age of the victim has been found to be 17 years and 5 months
as per high school certificate on the date of registration of the first
information report. It is further submitted that the applicant has tried his best
to enter into matrimonial alliance with the victim, however, the victim is not
agreeable to this proposal, therefore, the marriage could not be solemnized
and due to some financial distress, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- could not be
deposited in a fixed term in the name of the child. It is further submitted that
the applicant is still ready and willing to marry with the victim, if she agrees
to the said proposal. It is further submitted that the applicant the applicant
has remained in judicial custody for about 7 months and the applicant is
having no criminal history.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
BAIL No. 40740 of 2025
3
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court
in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC
Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant- Virendra involved in the aforementioned crime be
released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the
following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well
as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
BAIL No. 40740 of 2025
4
11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Siddharth Nagar via e-mail or e-prison portal within
24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC
685.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 23, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…