Allahabad High Court
NEETU @ DUDUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Neetu @ Dudu, who had been in custody since 14 October 2025 in connection with a criminal case involving Sections 64, 351(3), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of the POSCO Act. The court noted that a notice to the first informant had been served but the informant did not appear, and an ossification test indicated the alleged victim was 17 years old. The applicant’s counsel argued that the victim was actually a major and a consenting party, asserting that the accusation was false and that the applicant was ready to cooperate with the law. The State opposed bail, contending that innocence could not be determined at the pre‑trial stage and that the applicant might reoffend if released. After weighing the submissions and the nature of the evidence, the court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it subject to strict conditions, including not tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused pending trial under the specified sections of the B.N.S. and POSCO Act.
- Whether the age of the alleged victim (17) impacts the seriousness of the offence and the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication and willingness to cooperate justify bail.
- Whether the State’s argument that innocence cannot be determined pre‑trial precludes bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- consent
- false implication
- age of victim
- criminal procedure
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43057 of 2025
Neetu @ Dudu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Priyanka Srivastava
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Office vide its report dated 28.01.2026 has reported that notice issued
to the first informant of the case has been served personally, inspite of
service of notice, none appears for the informant even in the revised
reading of the list.
2. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, ossification test report has
been received by this Court. Perusal of the same would go to show that
the victim is 17 years, which is kept on record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Prinyanka Srivastava,
learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services, learned A.G.A for the
State and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that according to the
ossification test, the victim's age is 17 years, when in fact, she is a major.
Learned counsel further argued that perusal of the statements of the
victims would go to show 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 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 14.10.2025.
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
BAIL No. 43057 of 2025
2
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 Neetu @ Dudu involved in Case Crime No.572 of 2025
under Sections 64, 351(3), 61(2) B.N.S., Section 3/4 of POSCO Act,
Police Station Lohia Nagar, District Meerut, 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.
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 19, 2026
S.Ali/Sahani
Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…