Neeraj vs State Of U.P.
- Neutral2026:AHC:103900
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A person accused under Sections 64(1) and 333 BNS, 2023 may be granted bail during the pendency of trial where, considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions of the parties, the evidence on record, and the victim's statement indicating consent recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the court is satisfied prima facie that a case for bail has been made out. Bail granted under these circumstances shall be conditional upon the accused furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court, subject to verification, with the express conditions that the accused shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required. Breach of any bail condition 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
2. Heard Sri Alok Ranjan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 333 BNS, 2023, Police Station Baraur, District Kanpur Dehat, 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 FIR is delayed by about 8 days, and there is no explanation for the said delay. The victim is a consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wherein she has alleged fear that the applicant might discontinue the relationship as he is likely to marry. The victim is a married lady, obviously she is major. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 28.01.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned State Law Officer 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- Neeraj, 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