Amit Gangwar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:106130
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A court may refuse bail during the pendency of trial where the accused is charged under sexual offences laws, including the POCSO Act, on grounds including: (1) the absence of any provision for compromise under those statutes means that an alleged compromise between the parties indicates complicity rather than innocence; and (2) evidence that indecent material of the victim has been disseminated online demonstrates the gravity of the alleged offence and the danger posed by the accused.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard Sri Vijaya Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Narendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned AAG assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 721 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 64(2)M, 69 of BNS and 4(2), 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and 66 of I.T. Act, Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District - Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 21.3.2025 & 14.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4612 of 2025 and 18430 of 2025, respectively.
5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the parties have settled the matter and have agreed to marry each other on 07.03.2026. The eminent of the person of the locality got the matter settled between the parties, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
6. Per contra, learned AAG assisted by learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and the further fact that there is no provision for compromise under the sexual offences laws or the POCSO Act, the alleged compromise, if at all, rather indicates the complicity of the applicant. Significantly, certain indecent videos and photographs of the victim have gone viral on Instagram. In view of these factors, this Court does not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, the Trial Court is directed to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Siddhant
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free