Allahabad High Court
SUNIL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunil Kumar in Criminal Case No. 69 of 2026, where he was charged under IPC sections 62, 74, 108, 351(2) and sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant alleged that the alleged incident occurred on 7 March 2026 but the FIR was lodged only on 8 March 2026, and that the delay, contradictions between the FIR and the victim’s statement under section 183 IPC, and the absence of any corroborative evidence rendered the prosecution case weak. The court noted that the essential ingredients of offence under section 108 IPC were not established, the applicant had no prior criminal record and had already been in custody for over two months. The State could not demonstrate any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation or trial delay. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions of appearance, non‑tampering and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and contradictions in the victim’s statement defeat the prosecution’s case under sections 62, 74, 108, 351(2) IPC and sections 7/8 POCSO.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused, if released on bail, would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses or cause further delay in the trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 108, 183, 351, 62, 74
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 7, 8
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- POCSO Act
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- contradictory statements
- no criminal antecedents
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15415 of 2026
Sunil Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aviral Pandey, Mohit Singh, Ram Kesh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ambikesh Kumar Sharma, G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Ambikesh Kumar Sharma,
counsel for the informant as well as Sri S.S. Pandey, learned AGA for the
State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2026, under Sections 62, 74, 108,
351(2) B.N.S. and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Moondapandey, District- Moradabad,
during the pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
7.3.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 8.3.2026 under
Sections 74, 108, 351(2) B.N.S. The delay in lodging the first information
report is fatal to the prosecution case. During the course of investigation,
sections 62 B.N.S. and 7/8 POCSO Act were added. It is contended that the
allegations essentially pertain to an attempt to commit suicide and, therefore,
no offence under Section 108 B.N.S. is made out. It is next contended that
the applicant had not acted indecently with the victim. There are
contradictions in the first information report and the statement of the victim
under Section 183 B.N.S.S. with regard to the place of incident. As per the
first information report, when the victim had gone to the house of her
neighbour Tarawati, the applicant acted indecently with her, whereas, as per
the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., while she
was on her way, the applicant came from behind, caught hold of her and
acted indecently with her. The said contradictions discredit the prosecution
case. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant
with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 13.3.2026 having no criminal
BAIL No. 15415 of 2026
2
antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
4. Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for
bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the
record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section
108 B.N.S.S. are not made out. Further, there are contradictions in the first
information report and the statement of the victim under Section 183
B.N.S.S. with regard to the place of incident. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the
applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more
than two months and after submission of the charge sheet there is no hope of
early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been
brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would
either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness,
without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Sunil Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
May 14, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…