Allowed¶18

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

Allahabad HC5 May 2026BAIL/15420/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15420 of 2026, decided May 6, 2026 by Krishan Pahal, J. — Ajay v. State of U.P. and 3 Others — bail allowed in Case Crime No. 203 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Milak, District Rampur — grounds: seven-day unexplained delay in FIR, victim's statement u/s 183 BNSS suggesting consent, applicant aged about 25 years, no criminal history, in custody since 21.6.2025 — release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Ajay on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and to appear before the trial court as required. ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ajay is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 203 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the submissions of counsel, the evidence on record, the delay in the FIR, and the victim's statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS whereby she appears to be a consenting party, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is 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 be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Key takeaways

Observations made while granting bail shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — Case Crime No. 203 of 2025, Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Milak, District Rampur — Seven-day delay in FIR left unexplained — Victim's statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS indicates she was a consenting party (travelled with applicant from Milak, Rampur to Delhi by car without alarm) — Counsel further urged victim's apparent majority despite Class VIII certificate showing age 17, applicant's youth (about 25 years) and absence of criminal history; A.G.A. opposed but could not dispute the submissions — Without expressing any opinion on merits, bail granted on personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and to appear before trial court; breach to be ground for cancellation; observations not to affect trial court's independent opinion.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15420 of 2026

¶3

Ajay

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sl. No. 67 out of 259)

¶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 24.4.2026.

¶10

Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 203 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had gone with the applicant all the way from Milak, Rampur to Delhi by car and did not raise any alarm, whatsoever. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her age is 17 years as per Class VIII certificate. There is no valid document to suggest that victim was minor. Applicant himself is a youth aged about 25 years.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

¶14

BAIL No. 15420 of 2026

¶15

¶16

21.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in FIR; the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Ajay, 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 evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶23

May 6, 2026 Shalini

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anup Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Kusum Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Govind @ Akash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pushpendra Dev @ Talli vs State of U.P. and 3 Others