Allahabad High Court
BHOLA ALIAS VIJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for bail despite the serious nature of the allegations, given the FIR delay and lack of medical evidence.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Bhola alias Vijay Kumar, who was arrested in a Special Session Case under the POCSO Act for alleged rape of a minor. The applicant argued innocence, citing a four‑day delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and that the FIR only mentioned outraging modesty, not rape. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the recorded statement of the victim and the seriousness of the allegations. The Court noted the FIR’s delay, lack of medical corroboration, and that the FIR did not allege rape, and concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under CrPC Section 65(1) in a POCSO case where the FIR is delayed and lacks medical evidence.
- Whether the escalation of charges from outraging modesty to rape, without corroboration, affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 65(1)
- POCSO Act — s. 5, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- sexual offences
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- minor
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22480 of 2025
Bhola Alias Vijay Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kapil Tiwari, Ravi Shankar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajai Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 94 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to
the informant has been served on 26.6.2025.
2. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ajai Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Ajai Kumar, learned
counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer
and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Special Session Case No. 961 of 2025, arising out
of Case Crime No. 54 of 2025, under Section 65(1) BNS and 5n/6 POCSO
Act, Police Station Jarifnagar, District Budaun, 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 four days and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The allegations against the applicant in the FIR were of outraging of
modesty only but the same have been escalated to that of rape by the victim
in her statements recorded u/s 180 and 183 BNSS. The said statements have
been recorded after tutoring. There is no medical corroboration of the
incident.
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
30.3.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
BAIL No. 22480 of 2025
2
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that already the
statement of PW-1 has been recorded and there are serious allegations
against the applicant of having ravished the minor girl.
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 fact that the FIR did not whisper a single word about the
allegations of rape; there being no medical corroboration of the incident
coupled by the fact that FIR itself is delayed by four days 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- Bhola Alias Vijay Kumar, 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.)
April 23, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…