Arman vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ...
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32633
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In deciding whether to grant bail in a case involving charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and other offences, the court may grant bail to an accused who has been in custody since the date of arrest, has no prior criminal history, and where the prosecutrix's mother has refused to undergo the medical examination, notwithstanding the filing of the chargesheet, without entering into the merits of the case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
3. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite sufficient service of notice.
4 This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant involved in Crime No.18 of 2026, under Sections 140(4), 74, 351(3), 126 (2) B.N.S. and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Imaliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix was refued by her mother which creates a material doubt regarding of the allegations made in the F.I.R. In the present case, the chargesheet has already been filed. Hence, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 23.1.2026 having no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. however opposed the prayer for bail.
7. Considering the fact that the mother of the prosecutrix refused to get medical examination of the prosecutrix done; chargesheet has been filed; the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.1.2026 having no criminal history, without entering into the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant - Arman involved in Case Crime No.18 of 2026 (supra) be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iv) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(Rajeev Bharti,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shukla
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