Allahabad High Court
HARENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the circumstances did not warrant its grant.
Summary
Harendra Singh applied for bail in a case (Crime No. 265 of 2025) under IPC sections 65(1) and 351(3) and POCSO Act sections 5(n) and 6. He claimed innocence, citing a five‑day delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence, and argued that he had been in custody for ten months without being a flight risk. The State pointed out that five witnesses had already testified against him and that the trial was at its conclusive stage. The Court noted the seriousness of the allegations, the completed witness testimony, and the proximity of the trial to conclusion, and found no merit in the bail plea. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with a direction that the trial proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the delay in FIR, lack of medical evidence, and the stage of trial
- Whether the accused poses a flight risk or risk of tampering with evidence
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5(n), 6
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- POCSO Act
- witness testimony
- flight risk
- trial stage
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15216 of 2026
Harendra Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Kushwaha, Krishna Kant
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 12 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for informant as well as Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No. 265 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) BNS and 5(n)/6 POCSO Act,
Police Station Milak, District Rampur, with the prayer to enlarge him on
bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by five
days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. It is true that the applicant is uncle of the victim but the inordinate delay
goes unexplained. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. Already
five witnesses have been examined to date, as such, there is no likelihood of
applicant tampering with evidence or he being at flight risk.
6. The applicant is in jail since 26.7.2025, as such, the period of
BAIL No. 15216 of 2026
2
incarceration is ten months. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will
not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
7. The five witnesses examined in trial have deposed against the applicant.
The trial is at its conclusive end.
CONCLUSION:
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that already five witnesses have been examined and they have
deposed against the applicant; trial being at its conclusive end, I do not find
it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found
devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible, if there is no legal
impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…