Allahabad High Court
DHEERAJ GAURversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dheeraj Gaur in a case under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident, that the victim voluntarily left home, married the applicant, and that there was no allegation of force, making the prosecution case weak. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these points. The Court observed that the delayed FIR and the victim’s statements indicated a lack of coercion, and noted that the applicant had been in custody for over five months with no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case for bail denial
- Whether the alleged consent and absence of force justify granting bail
- Whether there is a reasonable risk of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- consent
- POCSO
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23546 of 2026
Dheeraj Gaur
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jata Shankar Pandey, Vijay Kant
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A.,
Shailendra Kumar Verma
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Case called out in the revised list. Counsel for the informant is not
present.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
87, 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-
Rajghat, District- Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
11.09.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on
13.09.2025. Delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. The victim is a major. The age of the victim was
incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to
give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age related
entry of the victim in the school records disclosing her age and the entries
made are unbelievable. Further, as per the statements of the victim
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., she left her house
voluntarily, had gone to Sangli (Maharashtra), married the applicant, and
both are living as husband and wife. There is no allegation of any forceful
assault against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 20.03.2026
having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not
BAIL No. 23546 of 2026
2
misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
6. 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. As per the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180
and 183 B.N.S.S., she left her house voluntarily, had gone to Sangli
(Maharashtra), married the applicant, and both are living as husband and
wife. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the
applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five
months and after submission of 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.
7. Let the applicant, Dheeraj Gaur involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 11, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…