Arvind Saini vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3826 of 2026

Arvind Saini

.....Applicant(s)

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

As per office report dated 10.3.2026, notice of the present bail application has been personally served upon the opposite party no.4/ informant. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 321 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)V, 3(1)Da and 3(1)Dha SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad during pendency of the trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is major. The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related entry of the victim in the school records. Further, the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Chandigarh and stayed in a hotel and established relations with him. She further stated that she had married the applicant. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 19.4.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

BAIL No. 3826 of 2026

2

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Chandigarh and stayed in a hotel and established relations with him. She further stated that she had married the applicant. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for almost eleven months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant, Arvind Saini involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.