# Amarjeet Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 795
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 40524 of 2024
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amarjeet-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53263
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal law- Bail - Applicant arrested
U/S 137(2), 61(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and
3/4(2) POCSO ActMinor girl enticed -
POCSO Act - Consent - Contradictory
St.ments of victim - FIR delayed - Victim
declared herself adult in 180 B.N.S.S.
St.ment - Ossification test not conducted
- No injury or medical corroboration -
Victim accompanied applicant voluntarily
to another St. - Promise of marriage - Bail
granted - Red tape and systemic failure in
age determination process deprecated -
Directions issued to health and police
authorities. (Paras 5,15, 16, 17, 18, 20
and 32)

HELD:

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court
passed in Niranjan Singh & anr. Vs Prabhakar
Rajaram Kharote & ors. AIR 1980 SC 785 this
Court has avoided detailed examination of the
evidence and elaborate documentation of the
merits of the case as no party should have the
impression that his case has been prejudiced. A
prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it
is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of
the merits in the order itself. (Para 15)

The well-known principle of "Presumption of
Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to
the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment
as an exception. (Para 16)

It is settled principle of law that the object of
bail is to secure the attendance of the accused
at
the
trial.
No
material
particulars
or
circumstances suggestive of the applicant
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of
justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and
the like have been shown by learned AGA. (Para
20)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Amarjeet Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795

114. Ms. Richa Upadhyay, Additional
District Judge/Secretary, DLSA, Gautam
Budh Nagar shall in coordination with
District Probationary Officer, Ghaziabad
prepare an individual child care plan for the
daughter of the applicant in light of this
judgement. The child care plan shall be
prepared within two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order after due
consultation with various authorities and
experts.

115. The State Government to provide
necessary support to Ms. Richa Upadhyay,
HJS/Secretary, DLSA, Gautam Budh Nagar
and
the
District
Probationary
Officer,
Ghaziabad to accomplish this task. Copy of the
said individual child care plan shall be provided
to the jail authorities, CWC and BSA. The
District Magistrate, Ghaziabad shall also ensure
that the aforesaid child care plan is duly
implemented by the concerned authorities of
the local administration.

116. The CWC, Ghaziabad shall prepare
a regular report regarding implementation of the
aforesaid plan and submit a report to the
concerned authorities.

X. Circulation of copies for compliance

117. Learned Additional Advocate
General to ensure service of copy of this
judgement for necessary compliance upon the
following authorities:

i. Principal Secretary, Women and Child
Development, Government of U.P.

ii.
Principal
Secretary,
Law/Legal
Remembrancer, Government of U.P.

iii. Director General of Police, Government of
UP
iv. Principal Secretary, (Prisons), Government
of UP

v. Principal Secretary (Basic Education),
Government of UP

vi.Principal Secretary, Health and Medical
Education, Government of UP

vii. CWC members in all districts

viii. District Jail Superintendents of all district
jails

ix. Police Chiefs of all districts

x. District Probationary Officers of all districts

xi. Director, JTRI, Lucknow

xii. District Magistrate, Ghaziabad

118. Registrar General to ensure that a
copy of this order is provided to Ms. Richa
Upadhyay, Additional District Judge/Secretary,
DLSA, Gautam Budh Nagar.

119. A copy of this order translated in
Hindi to be served to the applicant.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 795
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 40524 of 2024

Amarjeet Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Devottam Pandey, Sri Mrityunjay Singh
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal law- Bail - Applicant arrested
U/S 137(2), 61(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and
3/4(2) POCSO ActMinor girl enticed -
POCSO Act - Consent - Contradictory
St.ments of victim - FIR delayed - Victim
declared herself adult in 180 B.N.S.S.
St.ment - Ossification test not conducted
- No injury or medical corroboration -
Victim accompanied applicant voluntarily
to another St. - Promise of marriage - Bail
granted - Red tape and systemic failure in
age determination process deprecated -
Directions issued to health and police
authorities. (Paras 5,15, 16, 17, 18, 20
and 32)

HELD:

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court
passed in Niranjan Singh & anr. Vs Prabhakar
Rajaram Kharote & ors. AIR 1980 SC 785 this
Court has avoided detailed examination of the
evidence and elaborate documentation of the
merits of the case as no party should have the
impression that his case has been prejudiced. A
prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it
is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of
the merits in the order itself. (Para 15)

The well-known principle of "Presumption of
Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to
the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment
as an exception. (Para 16)

It is settled principle of law that the object of
bail is to secure the attendance of the accused
at
the
trial.
No
material
particulars
or
circumstances suggestive of the applicant
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of
justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and
the like have been shown by learned AGA. (Para
20)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Niranjan Singh & anr. Vs Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote & ors. AIR 1980 SC 785
2. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & ors., 2022 INSC 690
3. Manish Sisodia Vs Directorate of Enforcement
2024 INSC 595

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Affidavit of compliance filed by
learned A.G.A. today, is taken on record.

3. As informed by learned A.G.A.,
notice to the informant has been served on
4.11.2024.

4. Heard Sri Mrityunjay Singh,
learned Advocate holding brief for Sri
Devottam Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material placed on record.

5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime
No. 197 of 2024, U/S 137(2), 61(2), 65(1)
B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police
Station Gadwar, District Ballia, during the
pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

6. The FIR was instituted by the
informant stating that his 16-year old
daughter had left for college on 10.9.2024
at 9.00 am and did not return till the
evening. After taking up frantic search, it
was revealed that the applicant in collusion
with the co-accused person Rikhimuni
Pandey had enticed away his minor
daughter.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE APPLICANT:

7. The applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
4 All. Amarjeet Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
the present case with a view to cause
unnecessary harassment and to victimize
him. He has nothing to do with the said
offence.

8. The FIR is delayed by four days
and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused.

9. The victim is the consenting party,
as is evident from her statement recorded
u/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has
categorically stated that she was in love
with the applicant. She has also stated that
the applicant had promised to marry her, as
such, she left her house in the morning of
10.9.2024 at about 10.00 am and went with
the applicant to Gujarat and stayed there in
the house of his maternal uncle. She had
established corporeal relationship with the
applicant on the said promise of marriage
only.

10. The victim in her statement
recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S. has categorically
stated that she is 18 years old and she had
left her house after being scolded by her
parents.
The
said
statement
is
contradictory
to
the
FIR
and
her
statement recorded u /s 183 B.N.S.S.

11.

There
is
no
medical
corroboration of the incident, as the
victim had not sustained any injury,
whatsoever.

12. The applicant alongwith his
maternal aunt and uncle had taken her
back to her native place after coming to
know about the instant FIR. She has
further stated that her parents are also
ready to marry her off.

13. There is no criminal history of
the
applicant.
The
applicant
is
languishing in jail since 25.9.2024. In
case, the applicant is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
INFORMANT/STATE:

14. The bail application has been
opposed but the fact that there is no
criminal history of the applicant has not
been disputed.

CONCLUSION:

15. In light of the judgement of the
Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh
and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785
this
Court
has
avoided
detailed
examination
of
the
evidence
and
elaborate documentation of the merits of
the case as no party should have the
impression that his case has been
prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of
case is needed but it is not the same as an
exhaustive exploration of the merits in
the order itself.

16. The well-known principle of
"Presumption
of
Innocence
Unless
Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept
of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an
exception.

17. A person's right to life and
liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, cannot be taken
away simply because the person is
accused of committing an offence until the
guilt is established beyond a reasonable
doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
states that no one's life or personal liberty
may be taken away unless the procedure
established by law is followed, and the
procedure must be just and reasonable. The
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said principle has been recapitulated by the
Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

18. Reiterating the aforesaid view the
Supreme Court in the case of Manish
Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
2024 INSC 595 has again emphasized that
the very well-settled principle of law that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is
not to be forgotten. It is high time that the
Courts should recognize the principle that
?bail is a rule and jail is an exception?.

19. Learned AGA could not bring
forth any exceptional circumstances which
would warrant denial of bail to the
applicant.

20. It is settled principle of law that
the object of bail is to secure the attendance
of the accused at the trial. No material
particulars or circumstances suggestive of
the applicant fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating
other troubles in the shape of repeating
offences or intimidating witnesses and the
like have been shown by learned AGA.

21. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, the
evidence on record, the applicant having no
criminal history, the fact that the victim had
stated herself to be 18 years old in her
statement recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S. before
the investigating officer and also the fact
that she is the consenting party as per her
statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., and
also taking note of the fact that the victim
had gone with the applicant all the way to
Gujarat and stayed there and did not raise
any alarm during the said sojourn, coupled
by the fact that the victim has not sustained
any injuries, whatsoever, and despite
efforts, the ossification test of the victim
could not be conducted, 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.

22. Let the applicant- Amarjeet
Pandey 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

OSSIFICATION TEST REPORT:
4 All. Amarjeet Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799

25. This Court vide its order dated
10.2.2025 had directed the C.M.O. to
constitute a medical board to conduct
ossification test of the victim, so as to
ascertain her age. C.M.O., Ballia, did not
comply with the said order, as such, on
4.3.2025, a reminder was sent to him to
comply
with
the
said
order
dated
10.2.2025. This case was again taken up on
19.3.2025. Learned A.G.A. had submitted
that the C.M.O. Ballia, has reported that
despite several letters being sent to the
S.H.O. concerned, the victim is not being
produced before him for the ossification
test, as such, earlier orders dated 10.2.2025
and 4.3.2025 could not be complied with.

26. The office report indicates that the
learned C.J.M. has informed that the victim
is in Kolkata, West Bengal with her
paternal aunt, as such, her ossification test
could not be conducted.

27. As per the said compliance
affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., the victim
was taken to District Hospital, Mau on
5.3.2025 and her X-ray report was prepared
there. The said X-ray report has been
annexed as Annexure-2 to the compliance
affidavit. The informant had categorically
stated to the S.H.O. on 17.3.2025 that he
shall not take his daughter further for any
medical examination and he had given an
application to him to the effect, as the
victim is living in Himachal Pradesh.

28. The lady constable and one S.I.
had gone to the office of the C.M.O. Ballia
on 9.3.2025 with the X-ray report but the
C.M.O. concerned refused to give the
ossification test report on account of nonavailability of the victim before him.

29. The aforesaid averments made in
the compliance affidavit indicates that the
authorities are not serious in getting the
orders of the High Court complied. The red
tape approach is but evident from the
attitude of the authorities at large, as such,
with a heavy heart, this Court has no other
option but to dispose of the instant bail
application without the said ossification test
report. There is no documentary evidence
to indicate the age of the victim.

30. The victim was taken from Ballia
to Mau for her X-ray report but the
ossification test was not completed the
same day. The victim was asked to be
present before the C.M.O. on a subsequent
date.
The
said
callous
approach
is
deprecated, as the proceedings ought to
have been completed the same day.

31. The said matter regarding nonavailability of radiologist at Ballia, which
causes hardship to the poor victims, is
being dealt with separately by this Court in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19345
of 2024 (Prakash Kumar Gupta vs. State of
U.P. & 3 others).

32. It has come to the attention of this
Court that there exists a disturbing pattern
in the manner in which the age of
individuals,
particularly
in
criminal
proceedings, is being misrepresented and
inadequately
verified. The
issue
has
multiple dimensions involving litigants,
law
enforcement,
and
the
health
department, all contributing to a systemic
failure.

1. Fudging of Date of Birth by
Litigants:

This Court has observed with concern
that
some
litigants
are
intentionally
manipulating their date of birth in order to
obtain favourable legal outcomes, such as
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being declared a juvenile. This malpractice
undermines the integrity of the justice
delivery system and calls for stricter
scrutiny and penalties for submission of
false documents.

2. Failure of Police Authorities in
Age Verification:

Despite clear provisions under Section
94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ? which
mandates that the age of a person claiming
to be a juvenile must primarily be
determined on the basis of documentary
evidence ? law enforcement agencies
routinely fail to conduct proper age
verification by ossification test in the
absence of such documents. This laxity
reflects a serious neglect of statutory duty
and results in miscarriage of justice.

3. Inaction by Health Department
Due
to
Lack
of
Radiologists/Infrastructure etc.:

In cases where documentary evidence
is unavailable, the Act allows for medical
tests to determine age. However, in the
district of Ballia, such procedures are
rendered impossible due to the absence of a
qualified Radiologist since long. This lapse
in healthcare infrastructure not only delays
justice but also affects the credibility of the
juvenile justice system.

Recommendations:

The above situation reveals a chain of
administrative and procedural failures. It is
imperative that:

(i) For developing a mechanism
for stringent verification of documents
submitted for age determination, the police
is directed to strictly adhere to Section 94
of
The
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and be
trained accordingly.

(ii) Immediate steps be taken by
the Health Department to appoint or depute
at least one Radiologist in the district of
Ballia to ensure compliance with the
provisions of the Act.

Failure to address these issues
may lead to continued abuse of legal
provisions intended to protect genuinely
vulnerable
juveniles,
thereby
eroding
public trust in the justice system.

33. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the Principal Secretary for Medical Health
and
Family
Welfare,
Uttar
Pradesh
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 800
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 44720 of 2024

Nisha Kushwaha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ronak Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Cognizance
-
Magistrate's Power to Add or subtract any
section - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Sections 190(1)(b), 204, 216, 218 & 228
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 - Section 210 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 376/511, 406, 354, 498-A,