Allowed¶13

Kapoor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2025BAIL/12823/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed — Kapoor v. State of U.P. (and 3 others); Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12823 of 2024; FIR/Case Crime No.0164 of 2024; Ss.363, 366, 376 IPC; S.3/4 POCSO Act; P.S. Mallawan, District Hardoi; juvenile applicant aged 17 years; victim statements under S.161 and S.164 Cr.P.C.; custody since 08.08.2024; no criminal history; personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each; bail conditions; Judge Pankaj Bhatia; Lucknow Bench; decided October 17, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Kapoor on bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0164 of 2024 upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each, subject to conditions (a)-(c). ¶13

Kapoor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicant Kapoor on bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0164 of 2024 upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each, subject to conditions (a)-(c).

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Kapoor, aged 17 years, named in FIR/Case Crime No.0164 of 2024 under Ss.363, 366, 376 IPC and S.3/4 POCSO Act (P.S. Mallawan, District Hardoi), is entitled to bail.

¶12

Court's answer

Considering the victim's statements under S.161 and S.164 Cr.P.C. (in which she disclosed her age as seventeen and a half years, admitted going to Delhi and that nothing wrong was done, with the trip paid for by her uncle), and considering the applicant's age of 17 years, his custody since 08.08.2024 and absence of any criminal history, the Court concluded that the applicant is entitled to bail.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed and the Court directed that applicant Kapoor be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to the stated conditions of attending hearings, not committing similar offences, and not tampering with witnesses or evidence.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.-12823 of 2024 | Kapoor v. State of U.P. & 3 Others | Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Pankaj Bhatia, J. | Decided 17 October 2025 | Bail granted. Applicant, aged 17 years, in custody since 08.08.2024 with no criminal history, booked in FIR/Case Crime No.0164 of 2024 under Ss.363, 366, 376 IPC and S.3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Mallawan, District Hardoi. Victim's S.161 Cr.P.C. statement disclosed her age as seventeen and a half years and that she had gone to Delhi with nothing wrong done; her S.164 statement confirmed the Delhi trip was paid for by her uncle. Released on a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions against similar offences and witness/evidence tampering.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12823 of 2024

Kapoor

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko And 3 Others	Home Civil Sectt. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Krishna Kumar Singh, Aakash Srivastava, Ajeet Kumar Singh, Anshu Singh, Apoorv Srivastava, Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, Prashant Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶10

The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0164 of 2024 under section 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Mallawan, District Hardoi.

¶11

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years was enticed by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim disclosed her age as seventeen and a half years and admittedly she had gone to Delhi and nothing wrong was done. In the statement under section 164 also, she admitted that she had gone to Delhi for which her uncle has paid the money.

¶12

Considering the statements, and the age of the applicant to be 17 years, the applicant who is in custody since 08.08.2024 and has no criminal history, he is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Kapoor be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶14

BAIL No. 12823 of 2024

¶15

¶16

the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶18

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(c) 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.

¶20

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶21

October 17, 2025

¶22

VNP/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kapoor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapoor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Govind Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Saurabh Gaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Arvind Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. of Home Deptt. Lko.

Sameer Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Suneel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others