Allahabad High Court
SAHIBversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The applicant sought bail in a criminal case filed under Sections 137(2) and 65(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, alleging false implication. The FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident, and a medical report dated 22 May 2026 established the victim as a 19‑year‑old adult, not a child. The victim’s statements indicated she voluntarily went to the applicant’s residence and there was no allegation of forceful assault. The court observed that the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s adult status weakened the prosecution’s case, and found no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of non‑tampering, non‑pressurisation, and regular court appearances.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case for bail denial
- Whether the victim’s age as an adult negates the applicability of the POCSO provisions
- Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses warranting denial of bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- victim age
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27430 of 2026
Sahib
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Mishra
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 Manoj Kumar Mishra, counsel for the informant.
Perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 225 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
65(1) B.N.S., and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Mandi, District-
Saharanpur 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
11.5.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 14.5.2026.
The 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. As per the report of Chief Medical Officer,
Saharanpur dated 22.5.2026 the victim was found aged 19 years. Further, t
he victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. stated that
she left her house voluntarily and had gone to the applicant's place and
established relations with him. There is no allegation of any forceful assault
against the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in para 19 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since
24.5.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 27430 of 2026
2
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 report of Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur dated
22.5.2026, the victim was found aged 19 years. The victim in her statements
under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she left her house
voluntarily and had gone to the applicant's place and established relations
with him. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant.
Further, the applicant has presently remained confined for more than three
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.
7. Let the applicant, Sahib 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 16, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…