Shivakant Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

Shivakant Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicant Shivakant Pathak on bail in Case Crime No. 450 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to conditions of not tampering with prosecution evidence, not pressurizing prosecution witnesses, and appearing on every date fixed by the trial Court personally or through counsel.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Shivakant Pathak, involved in Case Crime No. 450 of 2025 under Section 137(2), 61(2), 75 B.N.S. and Section 9/10 POCSO Act (P.S. P.G.I., District Lucknow), should be enlarged on bail in this, his first, bail application.

Court's answer

Considering that the applicant is in jail since 20.9.2025 with no previous criminal history, that the named co-accused has already been granted bail, and that the charge-sheet has been filed, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed; applicant Shivakant Pathak is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to conditions that he (i) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, (ii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses, and (iii) shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, personally or through counsel; any other conditions may be imposed by the trial/concerned court.

Key takeaways

Clarified that the observations in the order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Rajeev Bharti, J.), April 24, 2026: First bail application of Shivakant Pathak, involved in Case Crime No. 450 of 2025, P.S. P.G.I., District Lucknow, under Section 137(2), 61(2), 75 B.N.S. and Section 9/10 POCSO Act. Bail allowed considering that the applicant is in jail since 20.9.2025 and has no previous criminal history, that co-accused Mohd. Shahid Khan @ Raju has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench (order dated 25.2.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11696 of 2025), and that the charge-sheet has been filed; the Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits. Release ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering with prosecution evidence, non-pressure on prosecution witnesses and attendance on all trial dates. Observations stated to be confined to the bail application with no bearing on the merits of the trial. Counsel had submitted that the FIR named unknown persons and that, per the victims' statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, they left home voluntarily travelling to Kanpur, Ghaziabad and then Mumbai; the AGA opposed bail but did not dispute the facts argued.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11783 of 2025

Shivakant Pathak

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avneesh Singh, Dhananjay Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 28

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

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

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.450 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 61(2), 75 B.N.S. and Section 9/10 POCSO Act, Police Station - P.G.I., District - Lucknow

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the FIR is lodged against unknown persons. The applicant neither abducted nor enticed away the victim. The alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years. The victims are above 16 years of age and have attained the age of discretion. Referring to their statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, it is submitted that they had voluntarily left their respective homes and travelled first to Kanpur, thereafter to Ghaziabad, and subsequently to Mumbai. It is also submitted that co-accused Mohd. Shahid Khan @ Raju has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 25.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11696 of 2025.

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history

BAIL No. 11783 of 2025

2

and he is in jail since 20.9.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. He undertakes that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 20.9.2025 having no previous criminal history; co-accused named above has already been granted bail; charge-sheet has been filed in the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant- Shivakant Pathak involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, either personally or through his counsel.

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

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.

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

April 24, 2026 Shravan

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench