Allahabad High Court
NAVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the accused.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Navi, who was charged under Sections 65(1) and 351(3) of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for alleged rape. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged two months after the alleged incident, that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. indicated consent, and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but did not rebut the applicant’s submissions. The Court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the victim’s alleged consent, and the lack of a clear date and time of the offence, and concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Sections 65(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act despite the seriousness of the alleged offence
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s statement indicating consent affect the bail decision
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 351(3), 65(1)
- B.N.S.S. Act — s. 183
- POCSO Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- delay in FIR
- victim consent
- Section 183
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15209 of 2026
Navi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 9 out of 259)
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 17.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Alka
Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 as well as Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 25 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
351(3) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jaswantnagar, District
Etawah, 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 two months and there is no explanation
of the said delay caused.
5. The allegation that applicant called the victim to his truck on the road and
committed rape with her in it are false. No date and time of offence is
mentioned in the FIR. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from
her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated
that applicant refused to talk to her. The victim, by her physical appearance,
seems to be major although her age is 16 years as per ossification test report
and a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper
side.
BAIL No. 15209 of 2026
2
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
1.2.2026 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:
7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.4 have opposed
the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the
counsel for the applicant.
CONCLUSION:
8. 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 she seems to be consenting party 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.
9. Let the applicant- Navi, 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. 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 6, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…