Allahabad High Court
ANKITversusSTATE OF U.P. THOUGH IT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME)
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is allowed as the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Summary
The applicant, Ankit, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 38 of 2026) involving alleged offences under several sections of the BNS and the POCSO Act. The court noted an inordinate delay of more than five months in lodging the FIR and observed that the alleged victim appeared to be a consenting party, with inconsistencies such as the claim of being ravished while parents slept in the same room. No documentary evidence established the victim's minority at the time of the alleged offence, and the Class IV medical certificate was deemed non‑evidentiary. Consequently, the prosecution’s case was found to lack prima facie credibility. 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, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of prima facie evidence justify granting bail.
- Whether the alleged victim's consent and the absence of proof of minority affect the bail decision under the BNS and POCSO statutes.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- prima facie case
- POCSO Act
- consent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14168 of 2026
Ankit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary
(Home) .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 27 out of 265)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice
to the informant has been served on 24.04.2026 but none is present on
behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2026, under Sections
137(2), 87, 65(1), 89, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 5J(2)/6 of POCSO
Act, Police Station - Bhopa, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the
pendency of trial.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
there is an inordinate delay of more than 5 months in lodging the
FIR. The victim appears to be a consenting party, alleging she was
ravished by the applicant while her parents slept in the same room which
is next to impossible. She reported the incident belatedly, only after
aborting the foetus. No valid document proves her minority at the time of
offence and the Class IV certificate appended carries no evidentiary value
in law. The prosecution case thus lacks prima facie credibility, warranting
bail to the applicant.
5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie
BAIL No. 14168 of 2026
2
the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Ankit, 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.
7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…