Hani Verma @ Yogendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15123 of 2026 Court No. - 65 (Sl. No. 27 out of 205) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 26.4.2026.

¶2Heard Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 392 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶4The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶5The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has categorically stated that her parents were against the applicant marrying the victim as he belonged to different caste. The victim, as such, had left her house as her marriage was to be solemnized with someone else and she had married the applicant and stayed with him at Faridabad, Haryana.

¶6There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is major as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Dutt Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hani Verma @ Yogendra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) her age is 19 years as per ossification test report.

¶7There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.3.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

¶8Learned State Law Officer has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. CONCLUSION:

¶9Considering 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 FIR; there being 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 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.

¶10Let the applicant-Hani Verma @ Yogendra, 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.

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

¶12It 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. May 5, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 15123 of 2026 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad