Allahabad High Court

ASHISH ALIAS VIJAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the substantial delay in filing the FIR and the surrounding circumstances raised reasonable doubt, warranting the grant of bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ashish alias Vijay, accused of raping the minor daughter of his alleged sister-in-law under Sections 64(2)(F) of the BNS Act and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused took advantage of the informant’s hospitalization to commit the offence on 22 May 2025, while the defence argued that the FIR was filed seven months after the incident and that the informant’s explanations for the delay were false. The court noted the significant delay in reporting, the lack of medical evidence, the applicant’s clean criminal record, and the possibility of false implication stemming from a financial dispute. Witness statements were recorded more than a month after the FIR, further indicating potential unreliability. Weighing these factors, the court concluded 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 POCSO rape case despite the seriousness of the alleged offence.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and recording witness statements justifies granting bail.
Whether the applicant’s alleged financial dispute and relationship with the informant affect the bail decision.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing.

Legislation cited

Boys and Girls Protection Act — s. 64(2)(F)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4(2)

Subjects

bail
POCSO Act
rape of minor
delay in FIR
false implication
sureties
witness tampering

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15154 of 2026

Ashish Alias Vijay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bharat Singh, Sunita Kaushik
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 33 out of 205)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A. notice to the
informant has been served on 21.4.2026.

2. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Umesh
Chandra Kushwaha and Sri Rahul Kumar, learned counsels for the informant
as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1258 of 2025, under Sections
64(2)(F) BNS and 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh,
during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to be the so called brother of the informant. The
informant was ill as she was being treated for a gall bladder stone and was
admitted in Pandit Deen Dayal Hospital, Aligarh and she was discharged
from the Hospital after a period of about one month. The applicant is
stated to have taken advantage of her absence from the house and
committed rape with her minor daughter on 22.5.2025 at about 6.00 pm.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by about seven months and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused.
BAIL No. 15154 of 2026
2

6. The informant has stated that victim had told her about the incident on
17.6.2025, which itself is delayed by about one month from the date of
incident and the FIR itself is further delayed by about six months from the
said date of narration of the incident to the FIR.

7. The informant has given a false explanation of the said delay caused in the
FIR, whereby she has stated that she was recovering from the operation and
was ill, as such, was not in a condition to move out. The said fact stands
falsified from the order sheet of the case regarding marital dispute between
the informant and her husband, which is pending before the A.C.J.M.-II,
Aligarh and the victim had attended the said trial on 21.7.2025, 15.9.2025
and 6.11.2025, which is the intervening period between the incident and the
institution of the FIR. The said order sheet has been filed as Annexure-9 to
the affidavit filed with the bail application. Thus, the delay in the FIR goes
unexplained.

8. The applicant is a clerk in the civil court before an advocate practicing
there and the victim is working with a stamp vendor. Both were working in
the same court premises and had cordial relations with each other and
applicant had borrowed Rs. 60,000/- from the informant in two transactions
and the dispute arose as applicant was unable to pay back the said loan to the
informant.

9. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is true that victim is
13 years old but it is a clear-cut case of false implication.

10. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 6.1.2026 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:

11. The applicant has not appended the complete statement of the witnesses.
There are statements of seven witnesses, who have stated that they had seen
the applicant at the time of occurrence and they had heard the shrieks of the
victim.

12. Learned counsel for the informant has sought adjournment at several
occasions during the argument and stated that he wants to file counter
BAIL No. 15154 of 2026
3

affidavit to the averments made by the counsel for the applicant

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT (IN REBUTTAL):

13. The said statements of the witnesses have been recorded on 5.2.2026,
which is further delayed by about one month and twelve days from the
FIR. They did not report the matter to anyone for eight months, which
indicates they are interested witnesses roped in later on.

CONCLUSION:

14. 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 of about seven months in institution of FIR from the
date of the incident; delay of six months from the date the victim narrated
the story to the informant; the fact that the informant and the applicant both
are well acquainted with the court proceedings and both of them were
working within the civil court premises. In addition to it, the order sheet of
the Court concerned indicates the participation of informant in the
proceedings during the intervening period 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.

15. Let the applicant- Ashish Alias Vijay, 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.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

17. 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 5, 2026
Shalini

Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…