Allahabad High Court

RAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Raj, who was arrested in Crime No. 105 of 2025 under several sections of the B.N.S. Act and sections 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident and that the victim, a 19‑year‑old adult, had voluntarily left her home and was pregnant, with no allegation of sexual assault against the applicant. The court observed the belated FIR, the victim’s adult age, the applicant’s clean criminal record, and the lack of any material risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering, pressurising witnesses, and mandating appearance in court. The bail was granted with the stipulated conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act and other sections of the B.N.S. Act.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the victim’s adult age affect the grant of bail.
Whether there is a risk of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 305, 61(2), 65(1), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5(L), 6

Subjects

bail
POCSO Act
delay in FIR
victim age
criminal antecedents
prima facie case
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2574 of 2026

Raj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Baikunth Nath Singh, G.A., Santosh
Kumar Singh

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87,
65(1), 305, 61(2) B.N.S., and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Kuthaund, District- Jalaun during
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
17.6.2025. The first information report was lodged on 19.6.2025. The delay
is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim is major. As per ossification test
report dated 9.7.2025 the victim was found aged 19 years. Further, the
victim in her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. has not levelled any
allegation of sexual assault against the applicant. However, the victim in her
statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she left her house
voluntarily with the applicant and went to Itawah, Gwalior and thereafter to
Rajkot and established relations with him. She further stated that she is
carrying a pregnancy of four months. The applicant is in jail since 7.7.2025
having no criminal history. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
BAIL No. 2574 of 2026
2

the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 was lodged
belatedly. As per ossification test report dated 9.7.2025 the victim was found
aged 19 years. The victim in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has
stated that she left her house voluntarily with the applicant and went to
Itawah, Gwalior and thereafter to Rajkot and established relations with him.
The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has
presently remained confined for more than eight months and 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 intimidate the witness, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant, Raj 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.

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.

March 18, 2026
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…