Allowed

Pankaj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2025BAIL/1799/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought bail in a POCSO and BNS case alleging outraging modesty of a minor and threatening her with an indecent video. The court, without expressing opinion on merits, found a prima facie case for bail and released him on conditions including non-tampering with evidence and trial presence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and remaining present before the Trial Court on fixed dates.

Pankaj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21353

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1799 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 20.1.2025.

¶8

Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.480 of 2024, under Sections 64, 333 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationSirsaganj, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the allegations in the instant case are that applicant used to outrage the modesty of the daughter of the informant and had made an indecent video of her and had threatened her to make it viral on social media on 2.11.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although, she is stated to be 17 years old as per the FIR. There is no recovery of any video whatsoever.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail

¶14

application.

¶15

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Pankaj , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.2.2025/ Vikas

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Vakeel Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Aman Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikki vs State of U.P.

Nilesh Alias Kiran Yashwant Suryavanshi vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishak Ansari vs State of U.P.