Ansit Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9706 of 2025

Ansit Vishwakarma

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under Sections 137 (2), 64(1) B.N.S and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, the applicant has been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7873 of 2025 vide order dated 27.08.2025. It is submitted that now, the chargesheet has been filed under Sections 137(2), 64(1) B.N.S and Section 5/6 POCSO Act. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.08.2025 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶11

"2. In the FIR, it is alleged that on 07.06.2025 at about 1:30 p.m., the informant?s minor daughter, aged around 17 years, went towards her school but did not return. It is further alleged that a person using mobile number 9336395537 enticed the victim away.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim?s date of birth is 02.09.2008 and, as per school records, she was 17 years old on the date of the alleged incident. The victim refused to undergo medical examination and no radiological test was conducted. In her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the victim stated that she voluntarily went with the applicant to Delhi, where they solemnized marriage. It is further submitted that the case does not disclose any allegation of enticement. The charge sheet has already been filed. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.06.2025 without having any criminal antecedents.

¶13

It is further submitted that 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.

¶14

BAIL No. 9706 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

4. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application.

¶17

5. Considering the victim?s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the absence of any criminal antecedents of the applicant, his incarceration since 15.06.2025, and the victim?s refusal to undergo medical examination, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶18

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. "

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the added section i.e. Section 5/6 POCSO Act as he has already been enlarged on bail in a grievous section i.e. Section 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. does not not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that in a grievous section i.e. Section 3/4 POCSO Act, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail and there is no material or the occasion for this court to refuse/deny the bail of the applicant in the added Section 5/6 POCSO Act, in the chargesheet; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail in the added section i.e. Section 5/6 POCSO Act.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the applicant Ansit Vishwakarma involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 243 of 2025, Under Section: 137(2), 64(1) BNS and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station: Jalalpur, District: Ambedkar Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- 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:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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

¶28

BAIL No. 9706 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

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.

¶31

(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 law.

¶32

(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).

¶33

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.

¶34

October 15, 2025 DiVYa

¶35

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶36

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

Ansit Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansit Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Virendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

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

Bunty Mandal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Santosh Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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