Allowed¶13

Shani Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026BAIL/25411/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J., April 23, 2026) allows bail to Shani Rajbhar in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025 (Sections 65(1), 69, 352, 351(3) BNS 2023; Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Nonhara, Ghazipur). Grounds: over one month's delay in FIR, victim's Section 183 BNSS statement showing apparent consent, and no recovery of any video. Bail on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Shani Rajbhar 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. ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Shani Rajbhar, is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025 under Sections 65(1), 69, 352, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Nonhara, District Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the delay of more than one month in the institution of the FIR, the victim appearing to be a consenting party as per her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., and the absence of any recovery of video, the Court was prima facie of the view that the applicant made out a case for bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Shani Rajbhar 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.

¶13

Key takeaways

Release is subject to conditions that the applicant 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, and the observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25411 of 2025 — Offences under Sections 65(1), 69, 352, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, P.S. Nonhara, District Ghazipur — Bail sought during pendency of trial. Held (Krishan Pahal, J.): taking into account the delay of more than one month in institution of the FIR, the victim's statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. indicating she appears to be a consenting party, and the fact that there was no recovery of any video whatsoever, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant made out a case for bail. Application allowed; applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties, subject to verification, on conditions of not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses and appearing before the trial court; breach entails cancellation; observations not to affect trial on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25411 of 2025

¶3

Shani Rajbhar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj, Kamla Singh, Rajjan Kumar, Vijay Shanker Singh : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sr. No.111 out of 259)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised.

¶10

Heard Ms. Kamla Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 69, 352, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Nonhara, District Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of more than one month in the institution of the FIR and that the victim appears to be a consenting party as per her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., coupled with the fact that there is no recovery of any video whatsoever, 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- Shani Rajbhar , 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.

¶14

BAIL No. 25411 of 2025

¶15

¶16