Gopal v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
The bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 64, 87, 115(2), 137(2), 351(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 183
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 313
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. and the delay in institution of FIR, without expressing any opinion on the merits of…
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2025, U/S 137(2), 87, 64, 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and 5j(2)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ayana, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.
The applicant had married the minor daughter of the informant, as such, she had given birth to a baby boy and subsequently, the applicant had beaten her up, as such, the instant FIR has been instituted by the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. It is stated that FIR is delayed by more than one and half year and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she is again pregnant and she has expressed her willingness to stay with her husband i.e. the applicant only. There is anomaly regarding the age of the victim. By her looks, she seems to be major. The applicant was taking care of his wedded wife and is ready to take care of her in future as well.
There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.2.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
Operative part
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. and the delay in institution of FIR, 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.
Let the applicant- Gopal involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
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. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 64, 87, 115(2), 137(2), 351(2); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 30 Apr 2025. The bench was KRISHAN PAHAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.