Lavkush 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 23.04.2026 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

2. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pande Priti Premshankar, learned counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 525 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Amroha Nagar, District - Amroha, during the pendency of trial.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds the victim's story, as narrated in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, inherently unbelievable and indicative of consent. She neither raised any alarm during the car journey with the applicant nor during her hotel stay, claiming nobody was in the vicinity. She did not report the incident immediately upon leaving the hotel room, further establishing consent. The ossification test places her age at about 16 years, subject to a margin of error. Furthermore, no medical evidence corroborates the alleged incident. 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- Lavkush, 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