Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25561 of 2025 Court No. - 65 (Sl. No. 114 out of 262) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 3.8.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶2Heard Sri Kaushlendra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Meja, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about nine days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶5Learned counsel has also stated that the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS cannot be believed as there is no sign of any struggle whatsoever. Even she has escalated the allegation to that of rape. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

¶6Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.06.2025, having no criminal history, deserves to be released Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kaushlendra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶7Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS which indicates towards her consent coupled by the fact that 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.

¶9Let the applicant-Bitanu @ Neeraj Kumar, 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.

¶10Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits. April 2, 2026 Siddhant BAIL No. 25561 of 2025 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad