Allahabad High Court

MONI UPADHYAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.

Summary

Moni Upadhyay applied for bail in a case (Crime No. 392 of 2025) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 137(2) and 64(1) BNS as well as sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, asserting that the two female victims, who are sisters, voluntarily left their parents' house and had a consensual relationship with him, and that they are adults. The State opposed bail but did not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court noted the five‑day delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any criminal history, and the victims’ statements indicating consent, and concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order clarified that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the case.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under IPC sections 137(2) and 64(1) BNS and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4.
Whether the alleged consent of the victims, who are claimed to be adults, negates the applicability of the POCSO provisions.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR affects the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 64(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
POCSO
consent
delay in FIR
criminal procedure
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15221 of 2026

Moni Upadhyay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Punya Sheel Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 14 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 24.4.2026.

2. Heard Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant 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. 392 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Refinery, District
Mathura, 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 victims V1 and V2 are stated to have gone on their own
from their house as they were not satisfied with their parents. The victims
have categorically stated that they wanted to live independent life and that
they had consensual relation with the applicant. Both the sisters have
stated that they want to stay together away from their parents.

5. The instant FIR is a misuse of the process of law, which itself is delayed
by five days. Both the victims are major as there is no documentary evidence
to suggest that they were minor.

6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
BAIL No. 15221 of 2026
2

in jail since 2.1.2026 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:

7. Learned A.G.A. has 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 and the statement of the victims, whereby
they seem 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- Moni Upadhyay, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…