Allahabad High Court
NANHEY @ NANHEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding that the circumstances warranted his release pending trial.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nanhey @ Nanhe, who was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 70(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than nine months, that the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS did not allege rape by him, and that the case was fabricated due to a family rivalry and a monetary dispute. The State Law Officer opposed bail but did not rebut the applicant’s submissions. The Court noted the unexplained delay, the absence of a rape allegation against the applicant, and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate with the trial. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond with sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the change in the victim’s statement justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 70(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 183, 5G, 6
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- POCSO Act
- family rivalry
- criminal trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14418 of 2026
Nanhey @ Nanhe
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.51 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 29.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P.
Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 357 of 2025, under Sections 70(2) BNS and
5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Salempur, District Bulandshahar, during the
pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The FIR is delayed by more than nine and a half months and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused.
5. The allegations have been changed in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183
BNSS, whereby it is stated that applicant and co-accused person Bobil had caught
hold of the hands of the victim while co-accused person Chhotu raped her.
6. The said case has been foisted on the applicant out of the family rivalry, as earlier
on, the sister-in-law of the informant also instituted an FIR regarding gang rape
against the applicant and co-accused persons. The applicant is a mason and he owed
money towards the informant, as such, to cover it up and usurp the amount due
towards the applicant, the instant FIR has been instituted. The victim, by her physical
appearance, seems to be major although her age is about 14 years as per her own
BAIL No. 14418 of 2026
2
statement. There is no valid document to suggest that victim was minor.
7. There is a criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant, which stands
explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.4.2026 and he is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
8. Learned State Law Officer has opposed the bail application but could not dispute
the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
CONCLUSION:
9. 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
FIR; the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby there is no
allegation of rape against the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Nanhey @ Nanhe, who is involved in aforementioned case
crime 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 verification of
sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in
any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the
testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…