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

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 23.4.2026.

2. Heard Sri Raghvendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Tahabarpur, District Azamgarh, 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 victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that applicant did not entice her away and that she has married the applicant and stayed with him as his wife. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

5. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her date of birth as per Class IX certificate is 11.9.2009 as such, her age is 16 years, 2 months and 20 days but the said certificate cannot be relied upon as the victim is stated to have been admitted during the instant session only i.e. 2025-26. There is no valid document to suggest that victim was minor.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

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

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party and has married him and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Vivek Kumar, 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.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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

Shalini