Allowed¶15

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

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025BAIL/18100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 18100 of 2025; Suraj versus State of U.P. and others; Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.; decided September 25, 2025; Case Crime No. 337 of 2024; Sections 137(2), 87 B.N.S.; Sections 16/17 POCSO Act; Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur; bail granted during pendency of trial; victim seemingly consenting party; personal bond and two sureties; surety verification; conditions against tampering, witness intimidation, appearance before trial court; breach ground for cancellation; observations not binding on trial Judge.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Suraj to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Suraj is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87 B.N.S. and 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of counsel, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration that the victim seems to be a consenting party, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held prima facie that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Suraj is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned; the sureties are to be verified before the release order is issued.

¶16

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to conditions: the applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial, shall not pressurise or intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶20
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; the merits remain open before the trial court.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed. Applicant Suraj, in custody since 07.01.2025, sought bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2024 under Sections 137(2) and 87 B.N.S. and Sections 16/17 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur, during pendency of trial. Counsel argued the victim was a consenting party who accompanied and stayed with the applicant voluntarily, raised no alarm, and made no allegation of confinement, and that the victim by her looks seems to be major with no criminal history against the applicant. Taking into consideration that the victim seems to be a consenting party, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held prima facie that a case for bail was made out and allowed the application. Release was directed on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with surety verification before the release order, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not pressurising or intimidating prosecution witnesses, and appearing before the trial court on fixed dates, breach being a ground for cancellation. It was clarified that the observations in the order shall not affect the trial Judge in forming an independent opinion on the testimony of witnesses.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18100 of 2025

¶3

Suraj

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Nanhe Lal Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 67

¶6

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Sumit Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.337 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87 B.N.S. and 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim has refused being subjected to any kind of sexual assault by the applicant, rather she is a consenting party as she has gone with the applicant and stayed with the applicant for a substantial period of time and has not raised any alarm whatsoever. She has also not made any allegation of being confined to any place by the applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim by her looks seems to be major. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

BAIL No. 18100 of 2025

¶14

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the victim seems to be a consenting party, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Suraj , 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶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

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶23

September 25, 2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj v. State of U.P. 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