Mahesh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:103494
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused person is not named in the FIR but is subsequently introduced by the victim in a statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, and the principal accused alleged to have committed the substantive offence has already been granted bail, a prima facie case for bail is made out, such that bail may be granted subject to conditions including furnishing personal bond and sureties, not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, and appearing before the trial court as required.
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 the notice to the informant has been served on 29.04.2026, but none is present on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Jeet Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.536 of 2025, under Sections 351(3), 70(1) BNS, 2023 and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Baberu, District Banda, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant was missing in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS also, but subsequently his name has been introduced in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, whereby the role of catching hold of the victim has been assigned to him. The main accused person, Lavkush, who is stated to have raped the victim, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11634 of 2026. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 18.02.2026. 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 that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has subsequently been introduced by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, coupled with the fact that the main accused person, who is stated to have raped the victim, has already been enlarged on bail, 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- Mahesh, 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
(Ravi Kant)
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