Mohd Nadeem vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Amitesh Kumar Srivastava, Naushad Alam, Shashi Kant Dwivedi, Sunita Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vinod Kumar Yadav Court No. - 65 (Sr. No.91 out of 259) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hakim Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.562 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 351(3), 61(2), 127(2), 77 BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, during the pendency of trial. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that the victim appears to be a consenting party as per her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, as she has stated that she was in love with the applicant and her father falsely implicated him, and that, there is no recovery of any indecent photo of the victim, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 5. Let the applicant- Mohd Nadeem, 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. 6. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits. (Krishan Pahal,J.) May 6, 2026 (Ravi Kant)