Allowed

Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025BAIL/8996/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a POCSO/BNS case alleging enticing away a minor. The victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS indicated she went with the applicant willingly and married him; no radiological age examination was conducted despite her being near majority. Bail was allowed with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to five listed conditions.

Sumit Kumar 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. - 8996 of 2025

¶3

Sumit Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 4 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Mishra, Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.	Vinod Kumar

¶6

Court No. - 12

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. submits that notices to the complainant is served.

¶10

None appears for the complainant.

¶11

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.162 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 351(3), 64(2) BNS and Sections 5 and 6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Deeh, District Raebareli.

¶12

In the F.I.R. it is alleged that applicant on 14.07.2025 at about 2 o'clock has enticed away the minor daughter of the informant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has stated that she was in love relationship with the applicant and she on her own accord went away with the applicant. She has denied the prosecution case while giving statement under Section 183 BNSS, she has stated that she on her own accord went away with the applicant to Raebareli and from Raebareli to Amritsar and she has married with the applicant. Applicant has no criminal history. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.07.2025.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and has submitted that victim is 17 years 11 months and 14 days old on the date of incident. She is having 2 months of pregnancy however, submits that radio-logical examination of the victim has not been conducted by the Investigating Officer as per his

¶15

BAIL No. 8996 of 2025

¶16

¶17

records. He also submitted that charge-sheet has been filed.

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.07.2025 having no criminal history, statement of the victim under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS where victim appears to be a consenting party, radio-logical examination age of the victim regarding bone age of the victim has not been conducted by the Investigating Officer neither any reason has been assigned, victim was more than 17 years, 11 months old on the date of incident 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 Sumit Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court 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

(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.

¶25

(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 Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶26

(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 Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶27

September 18, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shubham Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Zeeshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prn. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Udayraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Ram Prasad @ Kaji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Sachin Kumar @ Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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