Allahabad High Court
SUMIT ALIAS HAUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in the victim’s statement, lack of medical corroboration, and the applicant’s clean criminal record warranted the grant of bail.
Summary
The applicant, Sumit Alias Hau, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 193 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 65(1), 74, 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 7(2) of the POCSO Act. Counsel for the applicant argued that he was innocent, the FIR was lodged six days after the alleged incident, and the victim’s statement contained material contradictions with no medical proof of the alleged gang rape or the victim’s minority. The State and the informant opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s clean criminal record. The court examined the delay in filing the FIR, inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the absence of documentary or medical evidence regarding the victim’s age, and the applicant’s lack of prior offences. Concluding that these factors warranted a cautious approach and that the merits should be decided at trial, the court granted bail with conditions of personal bond, sureties, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged gang rape under the POCSO Act and other offences given the delay in FIR filing and contradictions in the victim’s statement.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence and proof of the victim’s minority, together with the applicant’s clean record, justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- FIR delay
- victim statement contradictions
- medical evidence
- criminal history
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26389 of 2025
Sumit Alias Hau
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Afzal Ansari, Mohit Kumar
Singh, Sujata Choudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Kumar Tiwari, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 119 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. The names of three counsels have been shown in
the cause list although Sri Mohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant, has submitted an illness slip and is not present.
2. Heard Sri Mohd. Afzal Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Rizwan Nazis, Advocate holding brief of Sri Atul Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned
A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 193 of 2025, under Sections
65(1), 74, 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3/7(2) of POCSO Act, Police
Station - Kankerkhera, District - Meerut, 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.
He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR
is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused.
5. Learned counsel has also stated that a false story of gang rape has been
cooked up by the victim. There is material contradictions in her statement
as at one stage, she was going to the hospital and on the other stage, she
was coming from the hospital. It is further stated that the victim is more
than 14 years-old but by her looks, she seems to be major although there
BAIL No. 26389 of 2025
2
is no valid documentary evidence to indicate that she was minor. There is
no medical corroboration of the incident.
6. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in
jail since 25.03.2025, having no criminal history, deserves to be released
on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the
fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, the delay in lodging the FIR, the contradictions in the statement of
the victim, absence of any reliable documentary evidence regarding her
age, and lack of medical corroboration of the alleged incident, this Court
finds that the matter requires appreciation of evidence during trial.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit
case for grant of bail. The bail application is accordingly allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Sumit Alias Hau, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…