Kunnu Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:103916
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
On an application for bail pending trial in a case involving charges under the BNS and the POCSO Act, where the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicates her consent, the court may grant bail on the basis that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for release, subject to the condition that the applicant furnish a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court, that the sureties be verified, and that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required. Breach of the conditions imposed in a bail order shall entail cancellation of bail, and observations made in granting bail shall not affect the trial on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 20.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Digambar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.126 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2), 64(2)(M), 65(1), 143(4) BNS and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as far as her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. is concerned. She has stated that she had married the applicant in a temple and had also denied being subjected to any corporeal relationship by the applicant. She has stated that she stayed with the applicant for about one year. The victim is major aged about 18 years. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 12.3.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
6. 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 under Section 183 B.N.S.S., which indicates her consent, 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. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Kunnu Yadav, 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.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
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