Allahabad High Court
MONU @ CHHOTU @ CHHOTELALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered the bail application of Monu @ Chhotu @ Chhotelal, who was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)m of the B.N.S., Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act. The court observed that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the alleged victim, aged about eighteen, had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and there was no allegation of forceful sexual assault, indicating consent. No corroborative evidence linked the applicant to the offence, and he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody for more than four months. The State failed to demonstrate any likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or fleeing. Accordingly, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution's case.
- Whether the victim's alleged consent negates the offences under the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or fleeing.
- Whether bail should be granted under the applicable statutory provisions.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 64(2)m, 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5(j)(ii), 6
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)5
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- sexual assault
- delay in FIR
- consent
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2762 of 2026
Monu @ Chhotu @ Chhotelal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aushim Luthra, Harishchandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. As per the office report dated 25.02.2026, notice of the instant application
has been served upon the informant/opposite party no.2 personally.
However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 nor any
counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.
2. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief
Holder for the State. Perused the material available on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0320 of 2025, under Sections 137(2),
87, 64(2)m B.N.S.; Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of
SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bilsi, District- Budaun, during the pendency of
trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
30.07.2025. The First information report was lodged on 19.08.2025. The
delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the ossification test report, the
was found aged about eighteen years. It is next contended that as per the
statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., the
victim had gone voluntarily with the applicant to Etah and Firozabad. She
had married the applicant and thereafter gone to Ahmadabad, stayed there.
There is no allegation of any forceful sexual assault against the applicant.
The victim was present at public places, but she did not raise any protest or
alarm. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. At
this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
BAIL No. 2762 of 2026
2
offence. The applicant is in jail since 27.10.2025 having no criminal
antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. 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 was found aged about
eighteen years. As per the statements of the victim under Section 180
B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., she had gone voluntarily with the applicant to
various places and stayed with him. There is no allegation of any forceful
sexual assault against the applicant. The victim was present at public places,
but she did not raise any protest or alarm. The conduct of the victim shows
that she was a consenting party. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has
no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than four
months and after submission of the charge sheet 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 Monu @ Chhotu @ Chhotelal, involved in the
aforesaid case 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 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
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…