Allowed¶12

Dayashankar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2026BAIL/14309/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dayashankar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others; bail application allowed; Case Crime No. 42 of 2026 under Ss. 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal; victim's s.183 BNSS statement indicated consenting party; two-day delay in lodging FIR; release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses; Allahabad High Court, Krishan Pahal, J., decided 07.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Dayashankar to 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 verification of sureties, on conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required; breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail.

Dayashankar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Dayashankar is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 42 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of learned counsel, the evidence on record, the victim's statement u/s 183 BNSS (whereby she seems to be a consenting party, having gone with the applicant to several places and not raising any alarm during the sojourn) and the two-day delay in lodging the FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held prima facie that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to 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 verification of sureties, with conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required; breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Krishan Pahal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14309 of 2026, decided 07.05.2026. Applicant Dayashankar sought bail in Case Crime No. 42 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial. Taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seemed to be a consenting party, having gone with the applicant to several places and not raising any alarm during the sojourn, and the two-day delay in lodging the FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held prima facie that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the application. Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and requiring appearance before the trial court; breach of any condition to entail cancellation of bail.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14309 of 2026

¶3

Dayashankar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bed Prakash Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sl. No.42 out of 265)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 29.4.2026.

¶10

Heard Sri Bed Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 42 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party, as she had gone with the applicant to several places and did not raise any alarm during the said sojourn, the delay of two days in lodging of FIR and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant- Dayashankar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with

¶14

BAIL No. 14309 of 2026

¶15

¶16

evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶17