Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

HARSH SHRIVASversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The court allowed the bail application, finding that the applicant had made out a case for bail prima facie.

Summary

Harsh Shrivas, a 19‑year‑old, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 65(1) and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, noting a two‑month delay in filing the FIR and the absence of any indecent photographs. The informant and the State opposed bail, but the court noted the delay, lack of material evidence, and the applicant’s clean record. Without passing on the merits, the court held that prima facie the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted in a case under Sections 65(1), 351(3) IPC and Sections 5(1), 6 POCSO Act despite the seriousness of the alleged offences
  • Whether the two‑month delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of recovered indecent photographs justify bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • delay in FIR
  • POCSO
  • sexual offences
  • sureties
  • presumption of innocence

Judgment

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29708 of 2026

Harsh Shrivas
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :   Abhisht Jaiswal, Atharva Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :   G.A., Shailendra Singh

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.42 out of 80 T.C.)

                             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 Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish
Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for
the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the
State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.252 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
351(3) BNS and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Premnagar,
District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about two months and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. There is no recovery of any indecent photograph from the
applicant. The victim by her looks seems to be major, and the applicant
himself is a youth of 19 years old. The applicant has no criminal history and
is in jail since 12.4.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not
misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have
vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
                                                                                              BAIL No. 29708 of 2026
                                                                      2


                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
                                    learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
                                    consideration the delay of two months in institution of FIR, coupled with the
                                    fact that no any indecent photograph has been recovered from the applicant,
                                    and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie
                                    the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The
                                    bail application is allowed.

                                    7. Let the applicant- Harsh Shrivas, be released on bail in the
                                    aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to
                                    the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties,
                                    with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
                                    witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

                                    8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
                                    herein shall not affect the trial on merits.



                                                                                               (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Vikas Verma




Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
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.