Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

BABU ALIAS MEHMOODversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted to the accused.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Babu alias Mehmood, accused of raping a minor under Sections 64(1), 332(2), 351(3) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused entered the informant's house on 22 April 2025 and raped the informant's daughter, with the FIR lodged five days after the incident. The defence argued that the FIR was delayed without justification, the victim's statement under Section 183 BNS was inconsistent, there was a prior similar FIR in 2021, and no medical evidence supported the charge, asserting the applicant's innocence and lack of criminal history. The State contended that the victim was a minor and the seriousness of the offence precluded bail. After weighing the delay, lack of corroborative evidence, and the applicant's clean record, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond with conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO rape case despite a five‑day delay in filing the FIR.
  • Whether the absence of medical evidence and the existence of a prior similar FIR affect the grant of bail.
  • Whether the applicant's claim of innocence and lack of criminal history justify bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • rape
  • minor
  • POCSO Act
  • FIR delay
  • medical evidence
  • false implication

Judgment

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27564 of 2025

Babu Alias Mehmood
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Avantika Nigam, Laxmi Devi, Mohd
                                Nasir, Prathamesh Upadhyay, Raj
                                Narayan, Thakur Prasad Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Irfanul Huda

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 99 out of 259)

                          HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Thakur Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Irfanul Huda, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.M. Yadav,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2025, under Sections
64(1), 332(2), 351(3) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Maudaha,
District Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant
on 22.4.2025 at about 10.30 am and committed rape with his daughter. On
hearing her shrieks, the informant and other members of the locality are
stated to have reached there, whereupon the applicant ran away from the
place of occurrence.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no
                                                            BAIL No. 27564 of 2025
                                  2


explanation of the said delay caused.

6. The story as narrated by the informant stands falsified from the statement
of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she has stated that applicant
had raped her by disrobing her and when her father reached there, she
narrated the complete story to him and he took the victim and the applicant
to police station.

7. The informant is used to filing such kind of frivolous FIRs. The wife of
informant filed an FIR No. 184 of 2021 against an accused person on similar
lines that too regarding the same victim and subsequently, she has turned
hostile in the said case and the co-accused person was acquitted. At the time
of the said FIR on 21.12.2021, the victim was 15 years old but in the instant
FIR instituted in the year 2025, her age has been mentioned as 17 years. If
otherwise the age mentioned in the earlier FIR is considered correct, then
she must be 19 years old at the time of the instant FIR.

8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 29.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

9. It stands established from the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183
BNSS that she and the applicant were taken to police station and the police
got the matter settled between the family somehow and after much
persuasion and running from pillar to post by the informant, the said FIR has
been instituted. The victim is minor. The applicant is not entitled for bail.

CONCLUSION:

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that FIR is delayed by five days and there being
another FIR instituted by wife of the informant regarding the same victim in
the year 2021 and there being no medical corroboration of the incident and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the
view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.
                                                                                             BAIL No. 27564 of 2025
                                                                    3


                                    11. Let the applicant- Babu Alias Mehmood, who is involved in
                                    aforementioned case crime be 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 verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall
                                    not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
                                    trial court as required.

                                    12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
                                    cancellation of bail.

                                    13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
                                    shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
                                    opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.



                                                                                              (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Shalini




Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.