Allowed¶18

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

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026BAIL/30288/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted — Case Crime No. 62 of 2025, P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj — Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act — delay of over one year in FIR — applicant in custody since 18.4.2025 — release on personal bond with two sureties, conditions imposed — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30288 of 2025 — Krishan Pahal, J. — Allahabad High Court.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; applicant Ajay 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 conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before the trial court on dates fixed), with sureties to be verified before the release order. ¶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, accused in Case Crime No. 62 of 2025 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and the delay in FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Ajay was directed 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 conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurise or intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail, and the sureties are to be verified before issuance of the release order.

¶18

Key takeaways

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.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) allowed the bail application of Ajay, accused in Case Crime No. 62 of 2025, Police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the submissions of counsel, the evidence on record and the delay in the FIR (urged by the applicant's counsel as exceeding one year without explanation), and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Bail was granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and pressurising or intimidating prosecution witnesses, and requiring appearance before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of any condition was made a ground for cancellation of bail, and the sureties were to be verified before the release order. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial judge's independent assessment of the testimony.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30288 of 2025

¶3

Ajay

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 65

¶7

(Sl. No. 138 out of 262)

¶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 28.8.2025.

¶10

Heard Sri Vikas Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 62 of 2025, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, 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 more than one year and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The only allegation is that he has refused to maintain the victim, who has given birth to a baby girl.

¶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 18.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

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

¶15

BAIL No. 30288 of 2025

¶16

¶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 delay in FIR 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 .

¶18

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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶25

April 2, 2026 Shalini

¶26

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

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