Navi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A. notice to the informant has been served on 17.4.2026.

2. Heard Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Alka Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 as well as 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. 25 of 2026, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jaswantnagar, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by two months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

5. The allegation that applicant called the victim to his truck on the road and committed rape with her in it are false. No date and time of offence is mentioned in the FIR. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that applicant refused to talk to her. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her age is 16 years as per ossification test report and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.2.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.4 have opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

CONCLUSION:

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in FIR; the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Navi, 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.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

May 6, 2026

Shalini