Vijay Shankar Pandey @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8481 of 2025

¶3

Vijay Shankar Pandey @ Bablu

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 12

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Deo Raj Singh, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Shri Suraj Singh Visen, Advocate holding brief of Shri Aman Kumar Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record.

¶10

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.552 of 2025, under Section 64(1), 351(3) BNS and Seciton 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri.

¶11

In the prosecution case it is alleged that while the minor sister of the informant, aged about 17 years, was going to college on 7.7.2025 around 10.00 a.m., the accused by threatening took her on a motorcycle somewhere. After a lot of effort she was recovered at 4.30 p.m. It is alleged that the victim had told her brother that she had been raped by the applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the story framed by the victim in her statement under Section 180 and 183 BNSS is highly improbable. The victim is 17 years and 11 months old as per her statement under Section 180 BNSS and she is Class XIIth passed. No ossification test of the victim has been conducted. According to her high school mark-sheet she was 17 years and 11 months old. He submitted that the victim is major and a consenting

¶13

BAIL No. 8481 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

party. No alarm was raised by the victim either while going with the applicant, at the place of occurrence, or while returning from there. Recovery was made on the same day. FIR was lodged on the same day. Prompt medical examination has been conducted on the very next date, still, in the opinion of the doctor, there is no sign of use of force. The medical does not corroborate the prosecution case. There is no other corroborative material. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in jail since 8.7.2025.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶17

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶18

On due consideration of the facts that the applicant is in jail since 8.7.2025; charge-sheet has been filed in the matter; the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the prosecution case lacks corroborative material; so also, prima facie , the prosecution story appears to be improbable and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Vijay Shankar Pandey @ Bablu be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

BAIL No. 8481 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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 under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶28

(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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶29

September 8, 2025

¶30

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Shankar Pandey @ Bablu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Shankar Pandey @ Bablu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

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

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neetu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Jabaaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.