The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case involving the alleged abduction of a minor, emphasizing that inconsistent witness statements and absence of independent corroboration for recovery undermine the prosecution’s prima facie case. The judgment underscores that bail cannot be denied solely on the gravity of the offence when material contradictions exist in the evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Atul @ Amit Yadav, is accused in Crime No. 157 of 2026 under Sections 140(1), 115(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arising from the alleged abduction of a minor female victim from Kushinagar district. The police claim the victim was recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Preetam Yadav, who were allegedly accompanying her on foot. The case hinges on the victim’s conflicting statements and the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery.
Key Facts
- The victim, a minor, was allegedly abducted on or about 10.03.2026
- The applicant and Preetam Yadav were arrested on 12.03.2026
- The victim was recovered from their custody on the same day
- The victim’s statement under Section 180 BNSS named Nitesh Yadav @ Mantu Yadav as the driver of the vehicle used in the abduction
- The victim’s subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS named Preetam Yadav as the driver
- The victim sustained only simple injuries, inconsistent with the alleged severity of the offence
- No independent witness corroborated the recovery of the victim from the applicant’s possession
- The applicant has no prior criminal record
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 12.03.2026
Procedural History
- 10.03.2026: Alleged abduction and arrest of accused
- 12.03.2026: Applicant arrested; lodged in jail
- 15.03.2026: Charge sheet filed by Police Station Kasya
- 06.05.2026: Co-accused Nitesh Yadav @ Mantu Yadav granted regular bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15271 of 2026
- 18.05.2026: Bail application filed by Atul @ Amit Yadav
- 18.05.2026: Hearing conducted before Hon’ble Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel, Ms. Neetu Pal, argued that:
- The victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS are materially contradictory regarding the identity of the driver
- The recovery of the victim lacks independent corroboration
- The nature of injuries (simple) does not support the gravity alleged
- The applicant has no criminal antecedents
- The co-accused Nitesh Yadav, who was named as the driver in the first statement, has already been granted bail
- The applicant has been in custody for over 35 days without trial
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) opposed bail on the grounds that:
- The victim was recovered from the applicant’s possession
- The offence involves abduction of a minor, a serious crime
- The applicant is a co-accused in a heinous offence
- However, the A.G.A. conceded that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and could not dispute the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks regular bail in Crime No. 157 of 2026, with conditions to ensure cooperation with the trial and non-interference with evidence or witnesses.
The Legal Issue
Can bail be granted in a serious offence involving abduction of a minor when the prosecution’s case is undermined by contradictory victim statements, lack of independent witnesses to recovery, and the co-accused already released on bail?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the evidence is inconsistent and the accused has no antecedents. She cited State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to argue that courts must examine the prima facie strength of the case before denying bail. She emphasized that the victim’s shifting account on a material fact - the identity of the driver - casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s narrative. The absence of independent witnesses to the recovery further weakens the case. The fact that a co-accused, named in the first statement as the driver, had already been granted bail, reinforced the argument that the applicant’s detention was disproportionate.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the offence under BNSS Sections 140(1) and 115(2) is grave, involving abduction of a minor, and thus warrants denial of bail. However, the A.G.A. did not dispute the factual inconsistencies in the victim’s statements or the lack of independent corroboration for the recovery. The State’s opposition was largely based on the nature of the charge, without addressing the evidentiary weaknesses.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the victim’s two statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS and Section 183 BNSS. It noted that the identity of the driver - a central element in establishing the chain of events - was attributed to two different persons in the two statements. The Court observed that such contradictions are not minor discrepancies but go to the root of the prosecution’s case.
"The recovery of the victim does not have any independent witness. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS indicates that the recovery may not have been made from the possession of the applicant."
The Court further noted that the victim sustained only simple injuries, which, in the context of an alleged abduction involving a vehicle and multiple accused, raises questions about the veracity of the prosecution’s version. The Court also highlighted that the co-accused Nitesh Yadav, who was named as the driver in the first statement, had already been granted bail by the same Court. This, the Court held, rendered the applicant’s continued detention inconsistent with the principle of equal treatment under law.
The Court emphasized that while the gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration, it cannot override the requirement of a prima facie case. In the absence of credible, consistent, and corroborated evidence, the applicant’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must prevail. The Court rejected the notion that bail should be denied merely because the offence is serious, particularly when the evidence is internally contradictory and lacks independent support.
The Verdict
The bail application is allowed. The applicant, Atul @ Amit Yadav, shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two reliable sureties each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions: (i) no tampering with evidence; (ii) no commission of further criminal activity; (iii) no intimidation of prosecution witnesses; and (iv) regular appearance before the trial court. The trial court shall transmit the release order via the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) within 48 hours. The applicant may be released on the basis of a computer-generated copy of this order, with a certified copy to be filed within 15 days. Any breach of conditions shall render the bail liable to cancellation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inconsistent Witness Statements Undermine Prosecution Prima Facie
- Practitioners must highlight contradictions in victim or witness statements under BNSS Sections 180 and 183 as grounds for bail, especially when the contradiction relates to a material fact
- Courts are now more likely to grant bail where the prosecution’s narrative is internally inconsistent, even in serious offences
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to explain why contradictory statements should be accepted as credible
Recovery Without Independent Witnesses Is Insufficient for Denial of Bail
- Recovery of a victim or object without independent corroboration is no longer sufficient to justify denial of bail
- Courts will scrutinize whether the recovery was witnessed by neutral parties or solely through the accused’s custody
- In cases involving minors, the absence of independent witnesses to recovery may be decisive in favour of bail
Co-Accused Bail Creates Equitable Pressure for Uniform Treatment
- When a co-accused is granted bail on similar or identical facts, denial of bail to another accused becomes prima facie arbitrary
- This judgment reinforces the principle of equal protection under law in bail jurisprudence
- Advocates should cite parallel bail grants to argue against differential treatment
