Sunil Nishad @ Sonu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:106727
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a bail application is made during the pendency of trial in a case involving allegations under the BNS and POCSO Act, the court may grant bail having regard to the nature of the offence, severity of punishment, absence of medical corroboration of the incident, and the overall facts and circumstances, subject to conditions including furnishing of personal bond and sureties, non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, and regular appearance before the trial court. Breach of any condition imposed in a bail order constitutes grounds for cancellation of bail. Observations made by the bail-granting court shall not bind or influence the trial judge's independent formation of opinion based on witness testimony.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ashutosh Kumar Gupta, Dharmendra Yadav, Laxmi Shankar Yadav, Sushama Kumari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Birendra Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 87 BNS and section 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, has categorically denied knowing the applicant. She has further denied being pregnant and stated that she does not know the applicant at all. Thus, it appears to be a clear-cut case of false implication of the applicant. The victim had left her house about seven months prior to her recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Sunil Nishad @ Sonu, 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.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
9. 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 7, 2026
Sushma
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