Allowed¶19

Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026BAIL/25561/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; POCSO Act Ss. 3/4 and BNS Ss. 65(1), 352, 351(3); Case Crime No. 69 of 2025, P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj; delay in lodging FIR; victim statement u/s 183 BNSS indicating consent; no medical corroboration; no criminal history; custody since 18.06.2025; personal bond and two sureties; Allahabad High Court; Krishan Pahal, J.; decided April 2, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (subject to verification), with conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and to appear before the trial court as required; breach of conditions entails cancellation of bail. ¶19

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar, should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2025 under Sections 65(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, nature of offence, severity of punishment, the delay in lodging the FIR, the victim's statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS which indicates towards her consent, and the absence of medical corroboration of the incident, the court found it prima facie a fit case to release the applicant on bail and allowed the bail application.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The applicant 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.

¶20

Key takeaways

Breach of any bail condition shall entail cancellation of bail, and the observations made in the order shall not affect the trial on merits.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed (Allahabad High Court, Krishan Pahal, J.) in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25561 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2025 under Sections 65(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj. The court considered the delay in lodging the FIR (argued by counsel to be about nine days), the victim's statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS which it observed indicates towards her consent, and the absence of medical corroboration of the incident; the AGA did not dispute that the applicant had no criminal history and had been in jail since 18.06.2025. Finding it prima facie a fit case, the court released the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to verification, on conditions of not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses and appearing before the trial court; breach entails cancellation, and the observations shall not affect the trial on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25561 of 2025

¶3

Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sl. No. 114 out of 262)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 3.8.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶10

Heard Sri Kaushlendra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Meja, District - Prayagraj, 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about nine days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶13

Learned counsel has also stated that the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS cannot be believed as there is no sign of any struggle whatsoever. Even she has escalated the allegation to that of rape. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

¶14

Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.06.2025, having no criminal history, deserves to be released

¶15

BAIL No. 25561 of 2025

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS which indicates towards her consent coupled by the fact that there being no medical corroboration of the incident, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar , 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.

¶21

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

¶22

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶23

April 2, 2026 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bitanu @ Neeraj 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alam vs State of U.P. and Another

Komal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indrakesh Sahani vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Babu Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others