Allahabad High Court
RAMZAN ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, given the FIR delay, the victim’s consent, and the applicant’s clean record, the applicant was entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramzan Ali, who was arrested in connection with a case under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), the POCSO Act (sections 3 and 4) and the SC/ST Act (section 3(2)(V). The applicant claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was filed four days after the alleged incident, and asserted that the victim, a 17‑year‑old, had consented and was not a minor. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the delay in the FIR, the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 indicating consent, the lack of medical evidence, and the applicant’s clean criminal record. Weighing these factors, the court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the court ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under serious offences including the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act despite the nature of the allegations.
- Whether the victim’s alleged consent and age affect the applicability of the POCSO provisions and the grant of bail.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the applicant’s clean criminal record justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 64(1), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(V)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- consent
- minor
- FIR delay
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15309 of 2026
Ramzan Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 54 out of 269)
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 5.5.2026.
2. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, 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 Sessions Trial No.392 of 2026, arising out of Case
Crime No. 38 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) and 3/4 POCSO Act
along with 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj,
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 four days and there is no explanation of
the said delay caused.
5. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had travelled with the
applicant all the way to Tamil Nadu and stayed there and did not raise any
alarm, whatsoever. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The
victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be major although her age is 17
years as per educational certificate. There is no valid document to suggest
that victim was minor.
BAIL No. 15309 of 2026
2
6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 25.1.2026 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. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by
counsel for the applicant has not been opposed.
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 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- Ramzan Ali, 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 14, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…