Ankit vs State Of U.P. Though It Principal ...

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 24.04.2026 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 89, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 5J(2)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bhopa, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is an inordinate delay of more than 5 months in lodging the FIR. The victim appears to be a consenting party, alleging she was ravished by the applicant while her parents slept in the same room which is next to impossible. She reported the incident belatedly, only after aborting the foetus. No valid document proves her minority at the time of offence and the Class IV certificate appended carries no evidentiary value in law. The prosecution case thus lacks prima facie credibility, warranting bail to the applicant.

5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

6. Let the applicant- Ankit, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

May 7, 2026

Siddhant