Allahabad High Court
RAGHUVEER NISHADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, granting bail with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Raghuveer Nishad, who had been in custody since 18 September 2025 in connection with a case involving a 17‑year‑old victim. An ossification test confirmed the victim’s age as 17, but the applicant’s counsel argued that the victim was a major and a consenting party, asserting that the charges were false and motivated. The State opposed bail, contending that the applicant’s innocence could not be determined at the pre‑trial stage and that he might reoffend if released. After evaluating the evidence, submissions, and the circumstances, the Court, without expressing a view on the merits, found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions including non‑tampering with evidence and non‑harassment of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged victim is a minor but claimed to be a consenting adult.
- Whether the pre‑trial stage permits a determination of the applicant’s innocence for bail purposes.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or committing a similar offence if released.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- ossification test
- victim age
- consent
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
- Section 89
- Section 65(1) B.N.S.
- Section 5L/6 POSCO Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42652 of 2025
Raghuveer Nishad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awaneesha Kumar, Mahesh
Kumar Sahani, Narendra
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Tripathi,
Ramkailash Rajbhar
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, a sealed envelop
has been received, which has been opened today in the Court.
The envelop contains the report of the concerned Court along
with ossification test report. The ossification test of the victim
shows that the victim is aged about 17 years and the same is
taken on record.
2. List revised. none appears for the High Court Legal
Services.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for
the informant,learned A.G.A for the State and peruse d the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that
according to the ossification test, though the victim's age is 17
years but she is major. Learned counsel further argued that
perusal of the statements of the victim would go to show that
the victim is a consenting party. Learned counsel thus argued
that the victim is a consenting party and that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior
motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the
falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also
BAIL No. 42652 of 2025
2
been placed before the Court. The circumstances which,
according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on
behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the
process of law and shall faithfully make himself available
before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept
all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose
upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail
since 18.09.2025.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of
the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant
cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not
deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on
bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse
the liberty of bail.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of
evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
7. Let applicant Raghuveer Nishad involved in Case Crime
No.548 of 2025 under Sections 89, 65(1) B.N.S., Section 5L/6
of POSCO Act, Police Station Geeda, District Gorakhpur, be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy
local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution
witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial
court.
BAIL No. 42652 of 2025
3
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the
commission.
v) 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 such person from
disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in
accordance with law.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
March 18, 2026
S.Ali
Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…