Prashant Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32638 of 2025

Prashant Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Giri Ram Rawat, Indra Deo Mishra, Sangeeta Yadav, Shri Ram (Rawat), Sofia Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 69

¶7

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 251 of 2025 under Sections 87, 137(2), 64(1) BNS and section 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Trans Yamuna, District Agra during pendency of the trial.

¶10

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the victim is aged about 17 years 11 months and 29 days on the alleged date of occurrence as per her High School marksheet which is just one day less than 18 years. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he has been languishing in jail since 22.8.2025. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that the victim has specifically narrated the incident in her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS.

¶12

5. The victim is aged about 17 years 11 months and 29 days on the alleged date of occurrence as per her High School marksheet. There are material contradictions in statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS. As per the FIR which has been lodged against unknown, some unknown person is said to have enticed away the daughter of the first informant, however, during investigation, she

¶13

BAIL No. 32638 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

was recovered. Applicant has no criminal history and he has been languishing in jail since 22.8.2025.

¶16

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED .

¶17

7 . Let the applicant Prashant Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

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

¶24

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

April 23, 2026 Madhurima

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant 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

Similar cases

Sushant Singh Dhakrey and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmveer Singh vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Pathan @ Yaseen Ghoda vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Nanhe @ Bagla vs State of U.P.

Nazim Ansari Vs State of U.P.