Allowed¶17

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026BAIL/29426/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Krishan Pahal, J. — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29426 of 2025, Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 others (decided April 23, 2026): bail allowed in Case Crime No.55 of 2025, P.S. Pailani, District Banda, involving Sections 64, 352, 351(3) BNS, Sections 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 66D I.T. Act; applicant in custody since 13.06.2025, no criminal history; release on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rohit Singh 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, 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. ¶17

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Rohit Singh is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2025 (under Sections 64, 352, 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Pailani, District Banda) during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail, and the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Rohit Singh 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.

¶17

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¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Case Crime No.55 of 2025, Police Station Pailani, District Banda, under Sections 64, 352, 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 66D of I.T. Act — applicant in jail since 13.06.2025 with no criminal history — defence plea that the victim is a consenting party who married the applicant and swore the bail affidavit herself — Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.), without expressing any opinion on the merits, held prima facie that a case for bail was made out and allowed the application — release ordered 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 to entail cancellation; observations not to affect the trial on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29426 of 2025

¶3

Rohit Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anshul Tiwari, Shantanu, Vikram Singh Shrivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Shobhit Yadav

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sr. No.142 out of 259)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 21.08.2025, but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶10

Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shantanu, 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.55 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station- Pailani, District- Banda, 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 she had married the applicant. She has expressed her willingness to stay only in the house of the applicant. Even in the instant bail application, the affidavit has been sworn by the victim herself. The allegation that the applicant sent indecent photographs of the victim to her erstwhile husband, with whom her marriage was proposed to be solemnized, is per se false. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 13.06.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

BAIL No. 29426 of 2025

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Rohit Singh , 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶20

April 23, 2026

¶21

(Ravi Kant)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Singh 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

Mohd. Nisar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Verma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rihana vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Govind Rajput vs State of U.P. and 3 Others