Allahabad High Court
AJAYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial.
Summary
Ajay was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, alleging sexual offences against a 17‑year‑old girl. The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged seven days after the alleged incident, that the victim had travelled with him voluntarily and gave a statement under Section 183 B.N.S. indicating consent, and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court examined the delay in filing the FIR, the victim’s statement, and the absence of any indication of a non‑consensual act, and concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the seven‑day delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case for denial of bail.
- Whether the alleged consent of a 17‑year‑old victim negates the applicability of the POCSO provisions.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or fleeing, warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under the circumstances of the case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- FIR delay
- consent
- minor
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15420 of 2026
Ajay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 67 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 Jitendra Singh, 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. 203 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Milak, District
Rampur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she had gone with the
applicant all the way from Milak, Rampur to Delhi by car and did not raise
any alarm, whatsoever. The victim, by her physical appearance, seems to be
major although her age is 17 years as per Class VIII certificate. There is no
valid document to suggest that victim was minor. Applicant himself is a
youth aged about 25 years.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
BAIL No. 15420 of 2026
2
21.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could
not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
7. 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; 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.
8. Let the applicant- Ajay, 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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…