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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Krishna Kumar released on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2025 (Ss. 191(2), 70(2), 77, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and S. 5g/6 of POCSO Act), P.S. Mirzamurad, District Varanasi, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with prosecution evidence; (ii) not to threaten or harass prosecution witnesses; (iii) to appear on dates fixed by the trial court; (iv) not to commit a similar offence; (v) not to make any inducement, threat or promise to dissuade any person acquainted with the facts from disclosing them or to tamper with evidence; breach permits the trial Court to cancel bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Krishna Kumar is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2025, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi, registered under Ss. 191(2), 70(2), 77, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and S. 5g/6 of POCSO Act, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and parity with co-accused Dinesh Kumar @ Bakhedu already enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations and the gravity of offence, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court found the case fit for bail and allowed the bail application; the parity submission regarding co-accused Dinesh Kumar @ Bakhedu (earlier bail order dated 19.01.2025) was not disputed by the learned AGA.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed release of applicant Krishna Kumar on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2025 (offences under Ss. 191(2), 70(2), 77, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and S. 5g/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Mirzamurad, District Varanasi) on execution of a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions imposed.

Key takeaways

On breach of any of the imposed bail conditions, the trial Court is empowered to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.; Court No. 65), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19387 of 2025, Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others, decided November 25, 2025: bail application ALLOWED. Applicant Krishna Kumar ordered released on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2025, P.S. Mirzamurad, District Varanasi, registered under Ss. 191(2), 70(2), 77, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and S. 5g/6 of POCSO Act, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount. Grant rested on the overall facts, the nature and gravity of allegations, and parity: similarly situated co-accused Dinesh Kumar @ Bakhedu had already been enlarged on bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11412 of 2025 (copy taken on record), and the learned AGA, while opposing bail, could not dispute the parity submission. The Court expressly declined to express any opinion on merits. Conditions imposed: no tampering with prosecution evidence; no threat/harassment of prosecution witnesses; appearance on dates fixed by the trial court; no commission of similar offence; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or to tamper with evidence; breach entitles the trial Court to cancel the bail. Applicant was in jail since 16.02.2025; service of notice on the first informant through WhatsApp (report of CJM, Varanasi dated 05.08.2025) was held sufficient.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19387 of 2025

Krishna Kumar	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mashaluddin Shah
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 65

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, vide its letter dated 05.08.2025 has reported that notice has been served upon the first informant of the case through Whatapps. Thus notice is deemed to be sufficient.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated co-accused namely, Dinesh Kumar @ Bakhedu has already been enlarged on bail by Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11412 of 2025, copy of which order has been produced before this Court and is taken on record. It is thus contended that the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 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 16.02.2025.

Learned AGA ahas vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that in case the applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail, however, could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant with regard to parity.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of

BAIL No. 19387 of 2025

2

allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

Let the applicant Krishna Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No.30 of 2025 under Section 191(2), 70(2), 77, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 61(2) of B.N.S., and Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in 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.

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.)

November 25, 2025 S.Ali

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad