Lakshman Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 29.04.2026 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

2. Heard Sri Rajeev Pushkar, 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. 17 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Sections 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Chandauli, District - Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is an inordinate delay of eleven days in lodging the FIR. The statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS prima facie indicates her consent as she had accompanied the applicant to several places without raising any alarm whatsoever. The Class 8 school certificate records her date of birth as 10.01.2008, placing her age at 17 years, 11 months, and 28 days on the date of the incident just three days short of majority however, this document cannot be relied upon as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. No other valid evidence establishes her minority at the relevant time. Furthermore, no medical evidence corroborates the alleged incident.

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- Lakshman Kumar, 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