Allahabad High Court

SHANI SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 15 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shani Sharma in a case under Sections 137(2), 87 of the CrPC, Section 65(1) of the B.N.S., and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the FIR was lodged belatedly, and that there were material inconsistencies between the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S., with no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court found the FIR to be delayed, noted the inconsistency in statements, observed the applicant's clean record and three‑month pre‑trial detention, and saw no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court and not interfere with the investigation.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the applicant's non‑inclusion in it warrant bail.
Whether material inconsistency in the victim's statements undermines the prosecution's case.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Whether the applicant's right to liberty outweighs the prosecution's interest in custody.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 65(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5L, 6

Subjects

bail
false implication
delay in FIR
inconsistent statements
POCSO
Criminal Procedure Code
no criminal antecedent
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27455 of 2026

Shani Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajneesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Kumar Shukla

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 Gaurav Kumar Shukla, 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. 71 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 87,
65(1) B.N.S., and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Sonha, District- Basti
during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The incident is alleged to have occurred on 7.4.2026, whereas the first
information report was lodged on 10.4.2026. The delay in lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the report of Chief
Medical Officer, Basti dated 1.6.2026 the victim was found aged between 18
to 19 years. Further, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180
B.N.S.S. stated that she left her house voluntarily and had gone to Mumbai.
At Mumbai, she met the applicant, stayed with him and established relations
with him. However, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183
B.N.S.S. narrated an entirely different version. As per the said statement,
there is no allegation against the applicant. It is contended that the material
inconsistency between the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and
183 B.N.S.S. discredits the prosecution case. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant
BAIL No. 27455 of 2026
2

is in jail since 25.5.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged
on bail, he will not misuse 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 has been lodged
belatedly. As per the report of Chief Medical Officer, Basti dated 1.6.2026
the victim was found aged between 18 to 19 years. There is material
inconsistency between the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and
183 B.N.S.S. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. 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.

6. Let the applicant, Shani Sharma 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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
September 16, 2026
S.S.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…