Allahabad High Court
BAIL/12686/2025 of ARVIND Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 18 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12686 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None has appeared for the informant despite notice. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12686 of 2025
Court No. - 12
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None has appeared for the informant despite notice.
2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 363 of 2025, under sections 333, 70(2) BNS, Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Harpalpur, District Hardoi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that a video was seen on social media in which sister of informant was wronged by various persons and when she was asked she informed that the applicant came to home and commit wrong on her sometimes in the October 2024. It is also stated that other person who are present there also forced to commit wrong on her. She also stated that on 1.11.2025 when she was called and she refused threats were issued by the applicant. In the light of the said allegations learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no recovery of any video as alleged in the FIR. The tentative age of the victim is around 17 years although there is no definite document with regard to exact age of the victim.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application. However, he does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. Considering the delay in lodging FIR, absence of any video as alleged and the medical on record not corroborating the allegations, however, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arvind .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 8.11.2025 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant Arvind be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and
(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. December 18, 2025 J. K. Dinkar BAIL No. 12686 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench