Allahabad High Court
GOVIND @ AKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Govind @ Akash, who was charged under Sections 65(1), 123, 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act for an alleged offence involving a minor. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was lodged more than five months after the alleged incident and that there was no medical evidence to corroborate the victim's claim. The State opposed bail but did not refute the applicant’s contentions. The Court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of medical proof, and the possibility of false implication, and, without commenting on the merits, concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious IPC and POCSO charges when the FIR is delayed and lacks medical evidence.
- Whether the alleged false implication of the accused warrants bail.
- Whether the conditions of bail (bond, sureties, non‑tampering) are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 351(2), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3(2), 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- FIR delay
- minor victim
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- sureties
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15346 of 2026
Govind @ Akash
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sukrampal, Tikendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 51 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 23.4.2026.
2. Heard Sri Tikendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 434 of 2025, under Sections
65(1), 123, 351(2) BNS and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Chhata,
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 FIR is delayed by more than five months and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused.
5. It is true that victim is minor but the instant case is a clear-cut case of false
implication, as he has been implicated in another case of similar nature by
the villagers out of vengeance and in the said case, the bail application of the
applicant is pending before this Court. There is no medical corroboration of
the incident.
6. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.9.2025 and he is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
BAIL No. 15346 of 2026
2
misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
aforesaid submissions of learned 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 of more than five months in lodging the FIR, there
being no medical corroboration of the incident 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- Govind @ Akash, 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…