Allahabad High Court

SHANUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding no necessity for continued custodial detention.

Summary

Shanu was arrested in connection with a sexual assault alleged to have occurred on 24.01.2026, initially charged under Sections 351(3) and 140(4) of the IPC and the POCSO Act. The victim, later found to be a 21‑year‑old adult, led to the removal of the POCSO provisions from the investigation. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing to contradictions between the FIR (filed two days after the incident) and the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, and the absence of any medical report linking him to the crime. The prosecution relied on a forensic report showing spermatozoa on the applicant’s jeans, but the victim’s samples yielded no incriminating material. The Court, noting the delay, inconsistencies, lack of substantive evidence, and the fact that a chargesheet had been filed, held that the applicant no longer required custodial interrogation and granted bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and contradictions between the FIR and the victim's statement warrant bail.
Whether the removal of POCSO provisions and lack of medical evidence affect the bail decision.
Whether the forensic evidence of spermatozoa on the applicant's clothing is sufficient to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 140(4), 351(3)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5g, 6

Subjects

bail
sexual assault
false implication
POCSO Act
forensic evidence
delay in FIR
contradictory statements
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13169 of 2026

Shanu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant, Learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime no.51 of 2026, under Sections 351(3),
140(4) BNS, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the victim is not a
minor and his age is 21 years. Initially, the FIR was lodged for offences
under Sections 137(2), 351(3), 140(4) BNS and Sections 5g and 6 of the
POCSO Act. He contends that lateron the victim was found to be major
and the provisions of the POCSO Act have been removed from the
investigation. He further contends that there is serious contradictions
between the FIR and the statement under Section 183 BNSS of the victim.
There is no medical report to substantiate the allegations against the
applicant.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that
the case against the applicant is consistent. The applicant is the solitary
accused mentioned in the FIR, who has committed sexual assault on the
victim. Learned AGA has further submitted that in the FSL report of the
medical examination of the victim and the applicant, on the jeans pant of
the applicant, spermatozoa was found. On the strength of this, Learned
AGA contends that sexual assault on the victim is clearly made out. He
BAIL No. 13169 of 2026
2

further submits that the applicant has not made any allegation of false
implication against the victim.

5. Rejoining the issue, Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the
incident is said to have taken place on 24.01.2026, however, the applicant
was arrested on 27.01.2026 and it is only thereafter that the sample and
the clothes of the applicant were taken for examination by the forensic
science laboratory. He further contended that in the medical examination
of the victim and the FSL report of the samples drawn from the victim, no
spermatozoa or any other incriminating material, which may connect the
applicant to the crime, have been recovered.

6. I have considered the submissions made by Learned counsels for the
parties.

7. The applicant although named in the FIR, however, the same has been
lodged after two days of the occurrence. The victim claims to be a minor,
however, in the police investigation, the provisions of the POCSO Act
have been removed. The statement of the victim recorded under Section
183 BNSS indicates that he was made to eat some biscuits by the
applicant, which led the victim to lose consciousness. This fact is absent
from the FIR. The applicant is not stated to have any criminal
antecedents.

8. Prima facie, in the opinion of the Court, there is a serious contradiction
between the FIR, which has been lodged with a delay of two days and the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS. The applicant
is in jail since 27.01.2026. A chargesheet has now been submitted and the
applicant is no longer required for any custodial arrest or interrogation.

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it
appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the accused-applicant, Shanu, involved in above mentioned case
crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and
BAIL No. 13169 of 2026
3

two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses
and co-operate in the trial.

(iv) The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by
the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted by the court
concerned.

12. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court
concerned will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

13. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel
with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

14. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
May 6, 2026
A. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…