Pintu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33660 of 2025

Pintu

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶6

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 65

¶8

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶9

Despite service of notice no one has appeared on behalf of informant even in the revised call.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is named in the F.I.R. which alleges that applicant had enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years. When the victim was recovered her statement under Sections 180 B.N.S.S. was recorded wherein she had specifically stated that she knew the applicant from one year, they used to talk with each other on phone, on the alleged date she went to Kasganj, thereafter, Aligarh, then Greator Noida and Gurgaon and then returned to Parichowk where applicant met him, thereafter they went to Anand Vihar where applicant established sexual relation with her. In her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS she has reiterated her earlier statement given to the police. Thus, in her both the statements she has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant. The victim has denied for her internal medical examination. As per her ossification test report the victim was found to be about 17 years of age at the time of her ossification test and taking benefit of two years either side the victim was major at the time of alleged incident. Learned counsel further submits that as per statements of the victim she left her house on her own and met with the applicant and thereafter went with him to Anand Vihar where sexual relation was established between them on her own consent and she has not made any allegation of rape against him, therefore, it appears that victim is a consenting party and applicant has falsely been implicated. 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

¶12

BAIL No. 33660 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

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 the applicant is in jail since 22.12.2024, with no criminal history.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶16

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of 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.

¶17

Let the applicant-Pintu, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 440 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police StationPaityali, District- Kasganj, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶19

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

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

¶21

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶22

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.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶24

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶25

November 6, 2025 Mustaqeem.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu 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

Satish Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Sarvar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Alias Chhotu Harijan vs State of U.P.

Jishan vs State of U.P.

Muzammil vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.