Vipin Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4070 of 2026

Vipin Pandey

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Dilip Kumar Pandey, Saurabh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

As per the office report dated 17.03.2026, notice of the present application has been served upon the informant personally. However, no one appears on behalf of the informant nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(1) POCSO Act, Police Station Adalhat, District Mirzapur during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 15.07.2025. The first information report was lodged on 21.07.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the ossification test report dated 12.09.2025, the victim was found aged 18-19 years. Placing reliance on the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. it is contended that the victim had gone with the applicant to Varanasi and thereafter to Tamilnadu. The victim was present at public places. She did not raise any alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 12.09.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

BAIL No. 4070 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 learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the ossification test report dated 12.09.2025, the victim was found aged 18-19 years. The victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she had gone with the applicant to Varanasi and thereafter to Tamilnadu. The victim was present at public places. She did not raise any alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than six months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, 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- Vipin Pandey, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.