Allowed

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

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2025BAIL/6493/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the bail application of Nemchand in Crime No. 1045 of 2024 under BNS and POCSO Act sections. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held the applicant had made out a prima facie case and ordered his release on a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52573

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6493 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nemchand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 28.2.2025.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1045 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(J) B.N.S., and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, 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. He is not named in the FIR.

¶11

It is further stated that the victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. By her looks, she seems to be major, although she is stated to be marginally less than 18 years.

¶12

There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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- Nemchand, 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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Shalini

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases