Pintu @ Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69783

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9183 of 2025

Applicant :- Pintu @ Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Compliance affidavit filed by learned State Law Officer is taken on record.

¶8

As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 16.3.2025.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 837 of 2024, U/S 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Powayan, District Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forcibly taken the victim to his room and committed rape with her on 6.12.2024 at about 10.00 pm, when she had gone out to fetch water from hand pump.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶13

Learned counsel has further stated that it is true that the victim is minor but she is the consenting party. There is no sign of resistance or violence on the body of the victim, as such, the prosecution story does not stand corroborated. The victim has

¶14

stated that she was seen by her uncle at the time of offence, as such, the applicant ran away. The said fact indicates her consent. The FIR has only been instituted after being seen by the said uncle.

¶15

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.12.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR and there being no sign of resistance or violence on the body of the victim, 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 .

¶18

Let the applicant- Pintu @ Pradeep Kumar involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶20

(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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.5.2025\Shalini

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

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

Pintu @ Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu @ Pradeep 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P at Lucknow and 3 Others

Sonu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivam Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sajid vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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