Allahabad High Court

MOHIT @ GOLUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court granted bail, finding that the applicant had made out a case for bail despite the serious nature of the charges.

Summary

Mohit @ Golu applied for bail in a case registered under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was filed three days after the alleged incident, the alleged victim was a consenting adult, and the matter was a consensual relationship between two adolescents. The opposite side opposed bail but did not refute the applicant’s submissions. The court noted that criminal antecedents cannot alone justify continued detention and that the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 183 indicated consent. Without passing on the merits, the court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under IPC and the POCSO Act.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged victim’s consent affect the bail eligibility.
Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 183 BNSS
Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(1) BNS, 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6

Subjects

bail
consent
POCSO
minor
FIR delay
criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13935 of 2026

Mohit @ Golu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ankit Mishra, G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.77 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ankit Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Varsha Singh, learned
counsel for High Court Legal Service Committee, Sri Rajendra Prasad
Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.264 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS, and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-
Pipiganj, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about three days, and there is no explanation for the said
delay. The victim is a consenting party, as she had travelled with the
applicant to several places and had taken Rs.1 lakh from her house. Earlier
on also, the informant had instituted an FIR against he applicant regarding
abscondence with the same victim. The victim, by her physical appearance,
seems to be major, although there is no valid document to suggest that she
was minor. The applicant himself is a youth aged about 20 years. A matter of
a consensual relationship between two adolescents has been converted into a
criminal case by the informant. The criminal history of two cases assigned to
the applicant stands explained. The applicant is in jail since 19.07.2025 and
BAIL No. 13935 of 2026
2

he undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have vehemently opposed the bail
application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for
the applicant.

6. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out, an
accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history attributed to the
applicant has been properly explained.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR and the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, which indicates her consent, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Mohit @ Golu, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.

9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…