Om Prakash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39104 of 2025

Om Prakash

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions submits that notice of the instant bail application has been served upon the opposite party no. 2- informant and opposite party no. 4- Child Welfare Committee, Budaun on 16.10.2025. The receiving endorsements as produced by the learned A.G.A. are taken on record. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 317 of 2025, under Sections 137(2)/87/64 BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the victim is aged 18 years. The victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS stated that she is aged 21 years, she has married the applicant and both are living as husband and wife. There is no allegation of any indecent behaviour or rape against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 28.08.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

BAIL No. 39104 of 2025

2

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS stated that she is aged 21 years, she has married the applicant and both are living as husband and wife. There is no allegation of any indecent behaviour or rape against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant- Om Prakash, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he: