Meraj vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 20.4.2026. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 23 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, P.S. Mugalsarai, District Chandauli during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and had later on refused to comply with the said promise. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party as she went with the applicant to Chennai and did not raise any alarm. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in Kunal Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 7004 of 2025), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 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. 8. Let the applicant- Meraj, 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) May 7, 2026 Sushma