Banti Kuamr v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
The bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the age of the victim coupled by the fact that the delay of four months in lodging the FIR, I find it a fit case to release…
Judgment
Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 164 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(Jha),(Dha) of IPC and Sections 5(Tha)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Purani Basti, District - Basti, during the pendency of trial.
Learned 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 more than four months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant all the way to Begusarai, Bihar and stayed with him for a substantial period of time and has not raised any alarm whatsoever. Despite that the victim has sustained one injury i.e. a bruise on her right upper arm but the said injury cannot be assigned to the applicant.
Learned counsel has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major although as per ossification test report, her age has come out to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on upper side in light of law laid down by Supreme Court. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per 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.
With respect to the age of the victim, a leverage of two years can be granted to the applicant on the upper side in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Jaya Mala Vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, whereby it has been opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.
Operative part
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the age of the victim coupled by the fact that the delay of four months in lodging the FIR, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Banti 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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:- 29.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU 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?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss. 5(Tha), 6; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 29 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.