Allahabad High Court

AVADHESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The bail application was dismissed as it was found devoid of merit.

Summary

The applicant, Avadhesh, sought bail in a case under Section 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, alleging that he had raped a 15‑year‑old girl on 11 February 2025. The prosecution argued that the FIR was filed promptly, the victim’s statement was reliable, and medical evidence was unnecessary, while the defence highlighted a four‑hour delay in filing the FIR, absence of injuries or spermatozoa, and claimed the FIR was motivated by a land dispute with the informant. The trial court had already completed prosecution evidence, examined ten witnesses, and scheduled the final judgment for 14 May 2026, leaving little remaining for the defence. The High Court noted that the trial was at its conclusive stage and the bail application lacked merit, especially given the seriousness of the alleged offence and the victim’s testimony. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with a direction that the pending trial be expedited.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted when the trial is at its conclusive stage and prosecution evidence is largely completed.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical corroboration justify bail in a POCSO case.
Whether the victim’s statement alone, under Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, suffices for bail considerations.
Whether alleged motives such as a land dispute affect the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 64(1)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 120
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
POCSO
sexual assault
minor
delay in FIR
medical evidence
trial stage
evidence act
land dispute

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13121 of 2025

Avadhesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neelam Singh, Preet Pal Singh Rathore
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bharat Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.85 out of 243)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan
Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.43 of 2025, under Sections 64(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act,
Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge him on
bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have raped the victim,
who is about 15 years old, on 11.2.2025 at about 8 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by
about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The
age of the victim, as per FIR, was 15 years and as per academic qualification
of class 5th, her date of birth is 1.2.2009, as such, she was about 16 years
and 10 days old. As per the statement of victim recorded under Section 180
and 183 BNSS, she has given a vacillating statement about her age to be 15
and 16 years, respectively. It is a clear cut case of false implication, as there
is no medical corroboration of the incident.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the doctor
BAIL No. 13121 of 2025
2

conducting medical examination has not found any injury on the vital part of
the body of the victim. Even the FSL report does not indicate presence of
any spermatozoa in the smear of the victim. The truth is that applicant had
purchased certain land, which was adjacent to the agricultural land of the
informant and applicant as well. The informant was also interested in
purchasing the said land, but he could not do so, as such, having failed
purchasing the said land, he has instituted the said FIR.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the said fact
that applicant and informant had their lands adjoining to each other, stands
admitted by the informant in his cross-examination. As such, the applicant is
entitled to bail. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been
explained. The applicant is in jail since 12.2.2025 and he is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law
Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the
trial is at its conclusive end and the FIR is prompt. Medical corroboration is
not necessary in the instant case. Even the rigors of Section 120 Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam applies to the instant case as the statement of victim
itself is enough, as she was not a consenting party. As such, the applicant is
not entitled to bail.

9. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court.
As per the said status report dated 11.5.2026, the prosecution evidence was
already complete and ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and
subsequently after recording the statement of accused under Section 351
BNSS, the arguments of rival parties were heard and case is fixed for
pronouncement of final judgment on 14.5.2026. As such, nothing remains in
the instant case.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the statement of victim being contested one during trial and
also the fact that trial is fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 14.05.2026
, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail
application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
BAIL No. 13121 of 2025
3

11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal
impediment.

12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…