Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dayashankar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Allahabad High Court7 May 2026Krishan Pahal

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

In a bail application under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act, where the victim's statement recorded under section 183 BNSS indicates consent and voluntary accompaniment with the accused without raising alarm, and there has been delay in lodging the FIR, the court may grant bail during trial pendency on the basis that a prima facie case for bail has been made out, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The conditions for grant of bail in such cases include furnishing personal bond and sureties, undertaking not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, and appearing before the trial court as required; breach of any such condition shall entail cancellation of bail.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADNeutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:105407HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADCRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14309 of 2026Dayashankar.....Applicant(s)VersusState Of U.P. And 3 Others.....Opposite Party(s)Counsel for Applicant(s):Bed Prakash RaiCounsel for Opposite Party(s):G.A.Court No. - 65(Sl. No.42 out of 265)HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 29.4.2026.

2. Heard Sri Bed Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 42 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party, as she had gone with the applicant to several places and did not raise any alarm during the said sojourn, the delay of two days in lodging of FIR and 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.

5. Let the applicant- Dayashankar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

6. Breach of any of the above condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observation herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

May 7, 2026

Shalini

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