Shubham Saini vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:105427
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused is charged with a serious offence including gang rape, but the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS does not nominate the accused as one of the perpetrators, the absence of the victim's nomination—which carries the highest evidentiary value in law—constitutes a circumstance warranting the grant of bail notwithstanding the gravity of the charges, as it demonstrates the prosecution case lacks prima facie credibility.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 28.04.2026 but none is present on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Kundan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2026, under Sections 70(2), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 5(G), 5(J)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Lar, District - Deoria, during the pendency of trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that, though a case of gang rape has been registered and the applicant is named in the FIR, the victim in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS has not nominated the applicant. This statement carries the highest evidentiary value in law. The prosecution case thus lacks prima facie credibility, warranting grant of bail to the applicant.
5. 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Shubham Saini, 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.
7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Siddhant
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