Rohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2025BAIL/9916/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rohit v. State of U.P. — bail granted, Allahabad HC (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 12, Pankaj Bhatia J., 16.10.2025; Crl. Misc. Bail Appln. No. 9916 of 2025; FIR No.163/2025, P.S. Dargah Sharif, Distt. Bahraich; charges Ss. 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and S. 5(i)(ii)/6 POCSO Act (enticement of minor girl); victim's BNSS Ss. 180 & 183 statements not supporting prosecution, love affair/marriage intent; custody since 21.08.2025; no criminal history; AGA opposed; personal bond with two sureties Rs.20,000/- each; conditions incl. no similar offence, no witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Rohit on bail in FIR No.163 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions (a)-(c). ¶¶12

Rohit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9916 of 2025

Rohit

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 3 Others	Lko.	...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharvan Mishra	Kumar	Pandey,	Neelam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 12

¶7

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.163 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and Section 5(i)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Dargah Sharif, District- Bahraich.

¶10

In terms of the FIR, it has been alleged that the daughter of informant was missing and she was enticed away by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statements of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, she has not supported the prosecution version and has stated that she is in love with the applicant and wants to marry him. It is further submitted that applicant is also willing to marry the victim.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶12

Considering the fact that the statements of victim do not corroborate with the prosecution story coupled with the fact that the applicant is in jail since 21.08.2025 having no criminal history, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Rohit be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

BAIL No. 9916 of 2025

¶16

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) 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.

¶19

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶20

October 16, 2025

¶21

V. Sinha

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Sitaram Paswan @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Harshit Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amrish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others