Allahabad High Court
NANHEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nanhe in Criminal Case No. 196 of 2026, which involved charges under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing out a two‑day delay in filing the FIR and a victim statement indicating a voluntary relationship with no allegation of force. The victim, aged 16 according to a medical report, had voluntarily left her home and later married the applicant, undermining the prosecution’s case. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points, and the court noted the applicant’s clean record and three‑month pre‑trial detention. Finding no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of non‑interference and regular court appearances.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the victim's voluntary statements affect the grant of bail.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 64, 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- FIR delay
- POCSO Act
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
- criminal antecedents
- personal bond
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27445 of 2026
Nanhe
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Jeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Learned AGA submits that notice of this bail application has been served
upon the opposite party no. 2/informant and opposite party no. 3/C.W.C. on
3.8.2026. 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. 196 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87,
64 B.N.S., and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sahaswan,
District- Budaun 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
24.4.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 26.4.2026.
The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution
case. As per the report of Chief Medical Officer, Budaun dated 19.5.2026,
the victim was found aged 16 years. The range of error in determining the
age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant
at this stage. Further, 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
Haryana, thereafter she accompanied the applicant to Punjab, married him
and stayed with him. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against
BAIL No. 27445 of 2026
2
the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 9.6.2026 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 gone to Haryana, thereafter
she accompanied the applicant to Punjab, married him and stayed with him.
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 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, Nanhe 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…