Nishant Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20043

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 761 of 2025

Applicant :- Nishant Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar , learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 8.1.2025 but none is present on his behalf in the revised call.

¶9

Original ossification test report along with explanation has been received by this Court which is on record. The said report may be sent back to the court concerned after retaining a xerox copy of it.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 503 of 2024, under Sections - 137 (2), 87, 65(1) of B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Handia, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶12

The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, student of class-IX on 15.8.2024 at about 7:00 A.M. when she had gone to ease herself out.

¶13

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶14

The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

¶15

The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is major and as per the

¶16

ossification test report, the age of the victim is stated to be 18 years.

¶17

The victim is the consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S.

¶18

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶19

The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶20

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:

¶21

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶22

CONCLUSION:

¶23

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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.

¶24

The well-known principle of " Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty, " gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶25

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC

¶26

690 .

¶27

Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 , has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that " bail is a rule and jail is an exception ".

¶28

Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶29

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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 .

¶31

Let the applicant- Nishant Kumar, 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.

¶32

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶33

(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./ 351BNSS 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.

¶34

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

¶35

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the

¶36

applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶37

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Akbar

¶38

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nishant Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishant Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sarjan vs State of U.P.

Haseen vs State of U.P.

Jogendra Alias Jugnu vs State of U.P.

Megha Khandelwal Qureshi @ Megha Hayat @ Megha Agarwal @ Megha Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Molu Yadav Alias Vivek Yadav vs State of U.P.