Allowed¶16

Mauli @ Ramsunder v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2026BAIL/5180/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5180 of 2026; Allahabad High Court; Vivek Varma, J.; decided March 18, 2026; Case Crime No. 297 of 2025; Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S.; 5Tha/6 POCSO Act; P.S. Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh; victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S.; voluntary marriage at Delhi; no forceful assault alleged; FIR delay (incident 14.09.2025, FIR 27.09.2025); applicant in jail since 09.12.2025; chargesheet filed; personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: applicant Mauli @ Ramsunder to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of appearing on fixed dates, not tampering with prosecution evidence, and not pressurizing prosecution witnesses. ¶16

Mauli @ Ramsunder vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Mauli @ Ramsunder, accused in Case Crime No. 297 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and 5Tha/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Court's answer

Prima facie, the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she had gone voluntarily to Delhi, married the applicant and stayed with him, and there is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The applicant has no criminal antecedents, has remained confined for more than three months, the chargesheet has been submitted with no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence, delaying the trial or intimidating witnesses was brought to the fore by the State; therefore, without commenting on the merits, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Key takeaways

The applicant is 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 appear on dates fixed by the trial court, shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, and shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses; breach entitles the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail before this Court.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vivek Varma, J.) allowed the bail application of Mauli @ Ramsunder in Case Crime No. 297 of 2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and 5Tha/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh. Relying on the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. that she had gone voluntarily to Delhi, married the applicant and stayed with him, and noting the absence of any allegation of forceful assault, the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, custody exceeding three months, submission of the chargesheet, and the State's inability to point to any apprehension of tampering, delay or intimidation, the Court, without commenting on merits, enlarged the applicant on bail on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance, non-tampering and non-pressure on witnesses, with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on breach.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5180 of 2026

¶3

Mauli @ Ramsunder

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Indra Deo Yadav, : G.A.	Yashpal Yadav

¶5

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions submits that notice of the present application has been served upon the informant- opposite party no. 2 and the Child Welfare Committee, Azamgarh- opposite party no. 4 on 05.02.2026. The receiving endorsements produced by the learned A.G.A. are taken on record. However, no one appears on behalf of the said opposite parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 297 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 B.N.S. and 5Tha/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

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 14.09.2025. The first information report was lodged on 27.09.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution 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 disclosing her age and the entries made are unbelievable. The victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she had

¶11

BAIL No. 5180 of 2026

¶12

¶13

gone voluntarily to Delhi and there she married the applicant and stayed with him. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 09.12.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶14

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

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she had gone voluntarily to Delhi and there she married the applicant and stayed with him. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the chargesheet 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.

¶16

Let the applicant- Mauli @ Ramsunder, 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:

¶17