Allahabad High Court

JEESANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jeesan, accused in a POCSO case (Criminal No. 552 of 2025) involving alleged rape of a 16‑year‑old girl. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly, there were inconsistencies between the FIR and the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Evidence Act, and no corroborative evidence linked him to the offence. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the age‑determination report indicating the victim was a minor, and the lack of any material linking the accused to the crime, while also observing that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody for over four months. The State could not demonstrate a real risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the victim's statements warrant granting bail.
Whether the alleged offence under the POCSO Act and the victim's minor status preclude bail.
Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing trial delay if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2), 87
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 65(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
POCSO
delay in FIR
minor victim
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
no corroborative evidence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 275 of 2026

Jeesan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sami Ullah Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chaman Aara, G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Learned AGA submits that notice of the present application
has been served on the opposite party no.2-informant on
19.01.2026 and opposite party no.4-Child Welfare Committee
on 06.01.2026. However, no one appears on their behalf nor
any counter affidavit has been filed. Receiving endorsements
produced by learned AGA, are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma,
learned AGA for the State-respondent. Ms. Chaman Aara,
counsel for the opposite party no.3 is not present.

3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 552 of 2025,
under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO
Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar during
the pendency of 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 12.09.2025. The victim returned to her parental
house on the next date i.e. on 13.09.2025. The first information
report was lodged on 24.10.2025. The delay in lodging the first
BAIL No. 275 of 2026
2

information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the first
information report, the applicant is alleged to have forcibly taken
the victim by a car to Lucknow and on the next day the victim
returned. However, the victim in her statements under Sections
180 and 183 BNSS stated that the applicant had committed rape
upon her. It is contended that the inconsistencies in the first
information report and the statements of the victim under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS discredits the prosecution case at this
stage. The victim is major. As per the ossification test report, 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. At this stage, there is
no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence.
The applicant is in jail since 29.10.2025 having no criminal
history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the
said liberty.

5. Learned AGA has 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 ossification test
report, the victim was found aged 16 years. There are
inconsistencies in the first information report and the statements
of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. At this stage,
there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover,
the applicant has 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 delay the trial 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 Jeesan, involved in the aforesaid case be
BAIL No. 275 of 2026
3

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

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.

March 19, 2026
Lbm/-

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…