Prem Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, a sealed envelop has been received, which has been opened today in the Court. The envelop contains the report of the concerned Court along with ossification test report. The ossification test of the victim shows that the victim is aged about 21 years and the same is taken on record.

¶10

Office vide its report dated 17.02.2026 has reported that notice issued to the first informant of the case has been served inspite of service of notice, none appears either for the informant or for the High Court Legal Services.

¶11

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

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that according to the ossification test, the victim's age is in between 21 years. Learned counsel further argued that perusal of the statements of the victim would go to show that the victim is a consenting party. Learned counsel thus argued that the victim is a consenting party and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the

¶13

BAIL No. 1330 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 08.09.2025.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let applicant Prem Kumar involved in Case Crime No.106 of 2025 under Sections 87, 137 (2), 65(1) B.N.S., Section 5L/6 of POSCO Act, Police Station Dubhad, District Ballia, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶20

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶23

BAIL No. 1330 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶27

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶28

March 18, 2026

¶29

S.Ali

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem 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

Similar cases

Subhash vs State of U.P.

Om Shiv Prasad Singh vs State of U.P.

Sahil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gufran Ali vs State of Up and Another

Yusuf Vs State of U.P.