Niraj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2025BAIL/7047/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted to accused in POCSO and SC/ST Act case involving molestation of minor; improvements in prosecution case, no criminal antecedents, incarceration since June 2025; offences punishable up to 7 years.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with conditions: (i) not tamper with evidence, (ii) not intimidate witnesses, (iii) not induce/threaten persons acquainted with facts, (iv) file undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses present, (v) remain present before trial court on each date, (vi) face proceedings if proclamation under Section 84 BNSS issued and applicant fails to appear. ¶¶14-¶24

Niraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7047 of 2025

¶3

Niraj Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Uday Bhanu Singh, Rajiva Dubey, Siddhartha Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 15

¶5

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. None appears on behalf of the complainant, although, as per the instructions of learned A.G.A, notice to the complainant is served.

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 01.06.2025, at around 11:30 P.M, the minor daughter of the complainant, aged about 10 years, while she was standing in front of her house, was molested by the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case suffers from improvement in the F.I.R as well as in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S, wherein it is alleged that after seeing the parents of the victim, the applicant ran away, whereas, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S, it is alleged that the applicant was apprehended on the spot and the father of the victim took the applicant to the police station. He submits that there is lack of corroborative evidence. The offences are punishable upto seven years. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is languishing in jail since 30.06.2025.

¶9

It is further submitted that chargesheet in the case has been filed. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

BAIL No. 7047 of 2025

¶11

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the period for which the applicant is in jail i.e. since 30.06.2025, the fact that offences are punishable upto 7 years, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the improvement made in the prosecution case; as also the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant Niraj Singh, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 237 of 2025, Under Sections- 74, 352 B.N.S., Section 7/8 POCSO, Section 3(2)5a, 3(1)dha of S.C/S.T Act, Police Station- Isaanagar, District- Kheri, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with

¶21

BAIL No. 7047 of 2025

¶22

¶23

law.

¶24

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶26

November 3, 2025 DiVYa

¶27

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Niraj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niraj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. 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

Dharmendra Madhesiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Dhanpat Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home and 3 Others

Salim @ Lala (as Per Rejection Order ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ruksar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ravindra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ramsamujh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.