Vikas vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30079 of 2025

Vikas

.....Applicant(s)

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

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

Notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 18.09.2025. Office vide its report dated 18.11.2025 reported that notice has been served personally on the opposite party no. 2 as per the report of C.J.M. concerned. Service of notice is thus sufficient. Despite service no one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 even in the revised list.

¶10

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Vikas, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 32/2025, under Section(s) 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Piluwa, DistrictEtah.

¶11

The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 21.4.2025 by Sheshpal Singh against the applicant and 07 other persons alleging therein that his daughter aged about 16 years was allured and enticed away by Vikas on 15.4.2025 at about 02:00 a.m., along with whom other accused persons were also present for which they were hatching conspiracy since the last six months. Binesh and Mithlesh had hatched a conspiracy regarding which previously a report as Report No. 18/2025 was lodged by him but no action was taken but the police had searched his daughter and brought

¶12

BAIL No. 30079 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

her back. In the night the accused again enticed her away. They want to get illegal work done from her and also want to sell her. While going from the house she has taken Rs.1,25,000/- kept in the house. They took her in a vehicle which was seen by his wife Rajnshri and then on shout Patiram the villager and Shivkumar the brother-in-law of the informant, came there but the accused ran away. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim during investigation in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. states that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will, solemnized marriage with him and they were living as husband and wife. It is submitted that the present case is a case of consent. It is submitted that the same thus goes to show that implication of the applicant in the matter is false. It is argued that the applicant has criminal antecedents of one case which has been disclosed and explained in para- 15 of the affidavit and is in jail since 02.05.2025.

¶16

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the victim recorded during investigation. It is submitted that the victim is a minor girl as per school leaving certificate therein her date of birth mentioned as 20.11.2009 and as per certificate ascertaining her age concerned C.M.O. has opined her age about 15-16 years and thus both the said documents have no discrepancies with regard to age. It is submitted that consent of a minor cannot be looked into at this stage.

¶17

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a minor aged about 15 years 04 month and 27 days as per school certificate and certificate of C.M.O. also states of her age between 15-16 years and thus she is minor and consent of a minor is of no woth. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the victim.

¶18

Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶19

BAIL No. 30079 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21