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

1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 18.01.2026, but none is present on behalf of the informant.

2. Heard Sri Jalaj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.430 of 2025, under Sections 333, 65(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 131 BNS and 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Hafizganj, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim by barging into her house on 06.10.2025 at about 11:00 a.m. When the victim objected to the said act, the applicant is stated to have assaulted her; in the meantime, the informant and other family members reached there, and the applicant ran away, pushing the informant.

5. 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 5 days, and there is no explanation for the said delay. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The story, as narrated by the victim, indicates her consent, as she has stated a different version from what was mentioned in the FIR. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major, although she is stated to be about 15 years old as per the school certificate of Class V, but there is no valid document to suggest that she was minor. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 17.10.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. 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 the institution of the FIR and that there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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.

8. Let the applicant- Pradeep 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.

9. 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)