Allahabad High Court

SANJEET KOL @ KALLUversusSTATE OF UP 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 Sanjeet Kol @ Kallu in a criminal case (Crime No. 190 of 2024) involving alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, highlighting a delayed FIR, the victim’s age of 18, and contradictory statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. The court noted the absence of corroborative evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and his pre‑trial confinement of over a year, finding no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Weighing these factors, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard bail conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the victim's statements warrant granting bail.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused will tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released.
Whether the accused's lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 180, 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 64, 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
false implication
delay in FIR
inconsistent victim statements
no corroborative evidence
pre‑trial detention
POCSO
IPC

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2800 of 2026

Sanjeet Kol @ Kallu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neha Pandey, Piyush Pandey, Pradeep
Kumar Srinette
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. As per office report dated 25.2.2026, notice of the present bail
application has been personally served upon the opposite party no.4/
informant. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.4
nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his 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. 190 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87,
64 B.N.S., and 3/4 POCSO, Police Station- Madihaan, District- Mirzapur
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
27.9.2024. The first information report was lodged on 1.10.2024. The delay
is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the ossification test report, the
victim was found aged 18 years. Further, the victim in her statements under
Section 180 B.N.S.S. has stated that she had gone voluntarily with the
applicant and stayed with him for two to three days. However, the victim in
her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. has stated a contrary version. It is
contended that the inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under
Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. discredit the prosecution case. At this stage,
there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The
BAIL No. 2800 of 2026
2

applicant is in jail since 4.10.2024 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 has 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 was lodged
belatedly. There are inconsistencies in the statement 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 antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined
for more than one year and five 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, Sanjeet Kol @ Kallu 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.)
March 19, 2026
S.S.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…