Raghuveer Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026BAIL/42652/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed — Sections 89, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 5L/6 POSCO Act — Case Crime No.548 of 2025, P.S. Geeda, District Gorakhpur — ossification test: victim aged about 17 years — plea that victim was consenting party and applicant falsely implicated — release on personal bond and two heavy local sureties with conditions — liberty to trial Court to cancel bail on breach — applicant in jail since 18.09.2025 — Raghuveer Nishad v. State of U.P. — Allahabad High Court — Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J. — March 18, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Raghuveer Nishad on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions at ¶¶15-21. ¶¶13

Raghuveer Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Raghuveer Nishad, involved in Case Crime No.548 of 2025 under Sections 89, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 5L/6 of POSCO Act, is entitled to bail, in view of the ossification test showing the victim's age as about 17 years and the applicant's contentions that the victim was a consenting party and that he was falsely implicated.

¶¶8

Court's answer

Bail application allowed: considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court held the applicant had made out a case for bail.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Raghuveer Nishad directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) not tamper with prosecution evidence; (ii) not threaten or harass prosecution witnesses; (iii) appear on dates fixed by the trial court; (iv) not commit a similar offence; (v) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) allowed the bail application of Raghuveer Nishad, involved in Case Crime No.548 of 2025, Police Station Geeda, District Gorakhpur, under Sections 89, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 5L/6 of POSCO Act. Pursuant to an earlier order, a sealed envelope containing the concerned Court's report and the ossification test report was opened in Court; the ossification test showed the victim to be aged about 17 years, and the report was taken on record. Counsel for the applicant contended that the victim, though 17 by ossification, was major and a consenting party and that the applicant was falsely implicated; the applicant undertook to cooperate with the process of law, having been in jail since 18.09.2025. The learned A.G.A. opposed bail, contending innocence cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage and that the applicant may misuse the liberty of bail. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, submissions and nature of evidence, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court held the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the application, directing release on a personal bond and two heavy local sureties, subject to conditions (no tampering with prosecution evidence; no threatening or harassing of prosecution witnesses; appearance on dates fixed; no commission of similar offences; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence), with liberty to the trial Court to cancel bail on breach of any condition. Decided March 18, 2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42652 of 2025

¶2

Versus Raghuveer Nishad	.....A	pplicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	..	...Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awanee Kumar Singh	sha Kuma Sahani,	r, Mahesh Narendra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ramkail	Rajesh ash Rajbh	Tripathi, ar

¶3

Court No. - 65

¶4

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶5

Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, a sealed envelop has been received, which has been opened today in the Court. The envelop contains the report of the concerned Court along with ossification test report. The ossification test of the victim shows that the victim is aged about 17 years and the same is taken on record.

¶6

List revised. none appears for the High Court Legal Services.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant,learned A.G.A for the State and peruse d the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that according to the ossification test, though the victim's age is 17 years but she is major. Learned counsel further argued that perusal of the statements of the victim would go to show that the victim is a consenting party. Learned counsel thus argued that the victim is a consenting party and that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also

¶9

BAIL No. 42652 of 2025

¶10

¶11

been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 18.09.2025.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let applicant Raghuveer Nishad involved in Case Crime No.548 of 2025 under Sections 89, 65(1) B.N.S., Section 5L/6 of POSCO Act, Police Station Geeda, District Gorakhpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶16

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

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

¶18

BAIL No. 42652 of 2025

¶19

¶20

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶21

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶23

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶24

March 18, 2026

¶25

S.Ali

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raghuveer Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer Nishad 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

Subhash vs State of U.P.

Om Shiv Prasad Singh vs State of U.P.

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

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

Yusuf Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Alias Pradumm Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others