Allahabad High Court
ARUNversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court granted bail to the accused, finding that the delay in the FIR, lack of medical corroboration, and vacillating victim statements created sufficient doubt to justify release on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Arun, who was charged under Sections 65(2) and 137(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1)(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly raping a 12‑year‑old girl on 26‑27 November 2025. The prosecution alleged that the accused forcibly took the victim to an under‑construction house and committed the offence, while the defence claimed the allegations were false, highlighted a three‑day delay in filing the FIR and the absence of any medical evidence or documentary proof of the victim’s minority. The victim’s statements were described as vacillating, and the accused had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since 1 December 2025. The court examined the delay in the FIR, lack of corroborative medical evidence, and the inconsistent victim testimony, concluding that these factors created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond with sureties, subject to standard conditions. The decision expressly stated that the bail order would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case given the nature of the alleged offence
- Impact of the three‑day delay in filing the FIR on the bail application
- Effect of the absence of medical evidence and the victim’s inconsistent statements on the likelihood of conviction
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 65(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5(1)(m), 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual offences
- delay in FIR
- lack of medical evidence
- false implication
- undertrial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15388 of 2026
Arun
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Dwivedi, Shailendra Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 59 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 Rajesh Dwivedi, 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. 652 of 2025, under Sections
65(2), 137(2) BNS and 5(1)(m)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Dadri, District
Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have forcibly taken the victim to a secluded
place in an under-constructed house and committed rape with her in the
intervening period of 26/27.11.2025 and dropped her near her house on
27.11.2025.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The allegations are per se false. The FIR is delayed by three
days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. There is no documentary evidence to suggest that the victim was minor,
BAIL No. 15388 of 2026
2
although she is stated to be 12 years old. It is a clear-cut case of false
implication as there is no medical corroboration of the incident.
7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 1.12.2025 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:
8. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the
submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
CONCLUSION:
9. 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; there being no medical corroboration of the
incident coupled by the fact that the victim has given vacillating statements
at different stages 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.
10. Let the applicant- Arun, 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.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
12. 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…