Raj vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:104272
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused is charged under Sections 137(2), 61(2), 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 5(2)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, bail may be granted during the pendency of trial upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, the submissions of the parties, and the evidence on record, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, where such statement indicates the victim's consent and the court is prima facie satisfied 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 of sureties, with the conditions that the accused shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required. Breach of any condition imposed upon bail 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
1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 22.4.2026. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.83 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 61(2), 64(1) BNS and 5(2)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Amroha Dehat, District Amroha, 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 one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as she has stated that she was in love with the applicant and had gone at her own sweet-will all the way to Punjab with the applicant.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim, by her looks, seems to be major. There is no valid document to suggest that she was minor. The applicant himself is a youth of 25 years old. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 26.3.2026. 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 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.
8. Let the applicant- Raj, 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
Vikas Verma
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