Allowed

Brij Mohan Chandra v. State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2025BAIL/12333/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 5/6 POCSO and BNS sections for alleged sexual harassment of a minor was allowed. Noting absence of medical evidence, completion of victim's examination, single witness examined so far and no likelihood of tampering, the court released the applicant on bail with conditions protecting the trial process.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond and two reliable sureties, with conditions against tampering, witness intimidation, adjournments and absence from trial dates.

Brij Mohan Chandra Vs State of. U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12333 of 2024

¶3

Brij Mohan Chandra

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Others	. Home Lko. And 3	....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Prince Singh, Anil Brijendra Kumar T Pratap Singh, P Srivastav, Rajesh Kumar Verma	Kumar iwari, raveen Kumar,	Sharma, Brijendra Kumar Umesh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Alok Srivastava

¶6

Court No. - 15

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶9

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶10

3. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0357 of 2024 under Section 137(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow.

¶11

4. In the prosecution case it is alleged that 14 years son of the informant was sexually harassed by the applicant.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal history and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim was medically examined by the doctor, and no injury, either internal or external, was found on her body. It is further submitted that since the applicant had refused to meet the demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the victim and her mother, he has been falsely implicated by them. The victim has already been examined before the trial court. The trial proceedings are progressing at a very slow pace. The

¶13

BAIL No. 12333 of 2024

¶14

¶15

applicant is in custody since 10.09.2024.

¶16

6. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶18

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶19

9. On due consideration of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, as well as before the Court, the report of the learned trial court, the provisions of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, and further taking into account that the prosecution case lacks corroborative medical evidence, and since the victim has already been examined, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with the evidence; till date only a single witness has been examined, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

11. Let the applicant Brij Mohan Chandra be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) 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.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek

¶26

BAIL No. 12333 of 2024

¶27

¶28

any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶29

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶30

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶31

12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶32

October 27, 2025

¶33

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶34

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brij Mohan Chandra v. State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Mohan Chandra v. State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Imran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sumit Kanaujia Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mo Zeeshan Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Ganesh Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Dinesh Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.