Allowed¶17

Pramod Kumar Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026BAIL/22420/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail – POCSO – Sections 137(2), 65(1) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act – victim's statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S./BNSS indicating consent – victim travelled with applicant including Mumbai without raising alarm – applicant in jail since 25.3.2025 – no criminal history – bail allowed with conditions – Allahabad High Court – Krishan Pahal, J. – decided April 20, 2026 – Case Crime No.59 of 2025, P.S. Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Pramod Kumar Rajpoot: release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and to appear before the trial court as required; breach to entail cancellation. ¶17

Pramod Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Pramod Kumar Rajpoot is entitled to bail in Case Crime No.59 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 65(1) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, the evidence on record, and the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. which indicates her consent, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court prima facie held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Pramod Kumar Rajpoot is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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.

¶18

Key takeaways

Breach of any condition of bail shall entail cancellation of bail, and the observations made in the order shall not affect the trial on merits.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Sections 137(2), 65(1) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act (Case Crime No.59 of 2025, P.S. Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat) allowed by the Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.). Taking into consideration the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., which indicated her consent — she having travelled with the applicant to several places including Mumbai without raising any alarm — and noting that the applicant had no criminal history and was in jail since 25.3.2025, the Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, prima facie held that a case for bail was made out. Bail granted on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to verification, with conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and requiring appearance before the trial court; breach of conditions to entail cancellation, and the observations not to affect the trial on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22420 of 2025

¶3

Pramod Kumar Rajpoot

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Lalji Vinay	Yadav, Shailesh Kumar Mishra, Kumar Mishra, Yashpal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sr. No.109 out of 277)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 26.6.2025.

¶10

Heard Ms. Poonam Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, 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.59 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65(1) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat, 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 victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she traveled with the applicant to several places including Mumbai but she had not raised any alarm whatsoever during the said sojourn.

¶13

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim, by her looks, seems to be major and she has mentioned herself to be 18 years old in her statement recorded U/s 183 BNSS. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 25.3.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

BAIL No. 22420 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

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 under Section 183 B.N.S.S., which indicates her consent, 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. The bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Pramod Kumar Rajpoot , be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶19

Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

¶20

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶21

April 20, 2026 Vikas Verma

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Kumar Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Rajpoot 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

Krishna Patel vs State of U.P.

Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aryan Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tanveer Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Garg Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others