Allahabad High Court
SAUDANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that, given the belated FIR, lack of corroborative evidence, and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation, the accused is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for the accused Saudan, who was charged under Sections 140(4), 351(3) of the BNSS and Sections 5M/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing out a four‑day delay between the alleged incident (05‑02‑2026) and the filing of the FIR (09‑02‑2026), and argued that the medical report showed no fresh injuries, undermining the prosecution’s case. The State opposed bail but failed to demonstrate any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. The Court found the FIR to be belated, noted the lack of corroborative evidence, and observed that the applicant had already been in custody for over two months. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of corroborative evidence justify granting bail under Section 483 BNSS.
- Whether the State has shown a reasonable apprehension that the accused might tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or delay the trial if released on bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- POCSO Act
- Section 483
- criminal procedure
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12294 of 2026
Saudan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Tewari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Learned AGA submits that notice of the present application has been
served on the opposite party no.2-informant and opposite party no.4-Child
Welfare Committee on 07.04.2026. Receiving endorsements produced by
learned AGA, are taken on record.
2. However, no one appears on their behalf nor any counter affidavit has
been filed.
3. Heard Sri Alok Singh Chandel, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sri Shushil
Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey,
learned AGA for the State-respondent.
4. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with
a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2026,
under Sections 140(4), 351(3) BNS and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police
Station Chandausi, District Sambhal during the pendency of trial.
5. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
05.02.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 09.02.2026.
Inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. The victim was examined by the doctor on 09.02.2026. As
per medical report "no any fresh external injury seen whole over of body". It
is contended that the medical report does not support the prosecution
version. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. At this
BAIL No. 12294 of 2026
2
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 21 of
the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 11.02.2026 and in case he is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
6. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
7. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged
belatedly. The medical report does not support the prosecution version. At
this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two
months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no
reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the
applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay
the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the
case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant Saudan, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions
that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
April 20, 2026
Lbm/-
Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…