Allahabad High Court
VIKASversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as there is no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vikas in Crime No. 313 of 2025, charged under Section 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5m/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged a year after the alleged incident, indicating a fatal delay, and that the victim, a minor, voluntarily left home and lived with the applicant, with no allegation of force. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court noted the belated FIR, lack of forceful assault, the applicant’s clean record, and the four‑month pre‑trial detention, finding no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions to not tamper with evidence, not pressurize witnesses, and appear in court.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case and warrants bail.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offence under the POCSO Act and B.N.S. justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- POCSO Act
- false implication
- no prior criminal record
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27440 of 2026
Vikas
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vidya Shankar Panday
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Learned AGA submits that notice of present bail application has been
served upon the opposite party no. 2/C.W.C. on 11.5.2026 and upon
opposite party no. 4/informant on 26.7.2026. The receiving endorsements,
produced by learned AGA are taken on record. However, no one appears on
behalf of the said opposite parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed on
their behalf.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, 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. 313 of 2025, under Sections 351(2)
B.N.S., and Section 5m/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Majhola, District-
Moradabad during pendency of the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
23.4.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 2.5.2026. 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. Further, the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and
183 B.N.S.S. stated that she left her house voluntarily and had accompanied
the applicant to Noida, established relations with him and both started living
BAIL No. 27440 of 2026
2
as husband and wife. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against
the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 9.5.2026 having no criminal
history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
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. The victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S.
stated that she left her house voluntarily and had accompanied the applicant
to Noida, established relations with him and both started living as husband
and wife. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant.
The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has
presently remained confined for more than four 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, Vikas 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…